Andrew Grant Hamill

I'll research this attorney before drafting the summary.

Let me verify a few more details.

Let me check the tracked case docket and a few remaining items.

Andrew Grant Hamill — Partner, Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP (the firm formerly known as Kramer Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP / Kramer Day), Silicon Valley office. Cal. Bar No. 251156, admitted Nov. 28, 2007; J.D. cum laude, University of Michigan Law School (associate editor, Michigan Law Review); B.S. computer science, University of Virginia (one third-party directory lists an incorrect 1998 J.D. year; the State Bar, Super Lawyers, and firm bio all confirm 2007). Prior to law school he worked as a software engineer; he began his legal career at an unnamed "prominent international law firm" and joined the current firm in October 2020, becoming partner in January 2023. (Cal. Bar profile; firm bio; promotion announcement)

Focus areas. His practice is patent litigation in district courts, the ITC, and the PTAB, with a technical center of gravity in software and electrical engineering: mobile application development/testing platforms, VPNs, cable-modem/DOCSIS standards, flash memory, CMOS image sensors, smartphones, and Wi-Fi power-amplifier designs. That mix is reflected in his own case list and in firm litigation dockets where he is listed as lead counsel (e.g., the Broadband iTV consolidated W.D. Tex. actions). (firm bio; docket excerpt)

Side preference. The tracked dataset shows a single appearance — plaintiff side, as counsel for Wapp Tech in Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al. v. Capital One Services, LLC (E.D. Tex. 4:25-cv-230, filed March 2025) — so the sample is too small to establish a pattern on its own. It is consistent, however, with his broader practice, which is weighted toward patent owners and NPE-style plaintiffs while also including defense work (he represented Cisco in VirnetX and the Motorola v. Rembrandt DOCSIS declaratory judgment action). His firm markets itself as "built around a singular focus: the patent owner." (Chambers firm profile)

Notable cases. He was part of the Wapp Tech trial team in Wapp Tech LP v. Seattle SpinCo / Micro Focus (E.D. Tex. 4:18-cv-469), which produced a $172,554,269 jury verdict and a willful-infringement finding on three mobile app-development patents on March 5, 2021 — the firm's headline result, later resolved for a reported $67.5M. He is also credited on the Broadband iTV v. AT&T/DirecTV/Dish video-on-demand matters, Asustek v. Round Rock Research (flash memory/CMOS), and the Epic Communications v. RichWave trade-secret case involving Wi-Fi power amplifiers, where summary judgment was overturned on appeal and the case settled. (Law360 via firm; RPX)

PTAB/IPR. He is not listed as lead counsel in any IPR; his PTAB activity is as backup counsel admitted pro hac vice, which suggests he is not a USPTO-registered practitioner. Verified admissions: IPR2023-00244, -00245, and -00246 (Google v. Wildseed Mobile, for the patent owner) and IPR2023-00771 (Samsung v. Polaris Powered Technologies, for the patent owner). His own PHV declarations state this is not a routine part of his practice — as of 2023 he had not applied for pro hac vice admission in the prior three years — and describe his role as assisting with IPRs rather than leading them. (PTAB order, IPR2023-00771; PHV declaration, IPR2023-00245)

Caveats: his exact role and title on the 2021 Wapp trial team (counsel vs. trial counsel) is not documented in the sources reviewed; the tracked 2025 Capital One matter remains pending, with the Frost defendants settled and Apple's venue motion litigated. Court admissions reported on his firm bio include the four California districts, E.D. Tex., and D. Del.