Andrew S. Ehmke

I'll research this attorney's background and verify details before writing the summary.

Let me verify outcomes in the tracked cases and PTAB work.

Andrew S. Ehmke — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Focus areas. Ehmke is a Haynes and Boone partner based in Dallas whose practice centers on Patent Office trials and Federal Circuit practice for large technology companies, with a district court litigation component. His listed technical experience is software, networking, cloud-based computing and services, mobile devices and computing hardware — consistent with his computer science background (B.S., Michigan State) and prior work as a software developer and information systems consultant. The tracked matters reflect that profile: mobile/telecom advertising and messaging (Google v. Wildseed Mobile), mobile payments and virtual wallets (Apple v. Fintiv), smartphone camera modules (Apple v. Corephotonics), high-performance/cluster computing (Intel and AMD v. Advanced Cluster Systems), and Wi-Fi-related smartphone patents (SMART Mobile Technologies v. Apple). There is no indication of pharmaceutical/ANDA or mechanical-arts work in this set.

Side preference. He is predominantly a petitioner-side practitioner: most of his tracked appearances place him with the operating company challenging asserted patents (Intel, Apple, Google), including six of nine tracked entries on the plaintiff/petitioner side and a firm biography describing him as "primary counsel for many high-profile technology companies in inter partes review proceedings" and repeatedly ranked for petitioner performance by Patexia (e.g., #2 petitioner performance in the 2025 PTAB Intelligence Report; #8 in 2024; #4 of 3,403 attorneys in 2022). The three defendant-side entries show he also defends operating companies — most notably as of counsel for Apple in the SMART Mobile Technologies Wi-Fi litigation, and in the Wildseed dispute, where he represented Google as the accused infringer in related proceedings while also serving as IPR petitioner. The overall pattern is defense of technology clients rather than prosecution for NPEs/PAEs.

Firm and professional context. All tracked appearances are at Haynes and Boone, where he is a partner in the Patent Office Trials group and has held firm leadership roles including Chief Information Partner and membership on the firm's board of directors. He also teaches as an adjunct professor at SMU Dedman School of Law (Trials at the Patent Office) and is active in the State Bar of Texas IP Section and the PTAB Bar Association. No prior firm history surfaced in the sources reviewed, which are uniformly consistent on Haynes and Boone.

Notable matters and outcomes. Two lines of work are well documented publicly. In the Wildseed Mobile IPR family, he represented Google as petitioner; the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's obviousness invalidation of claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,376,414 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2026, No. 24-1846, rejecting Wildseed's claim-construction and APA challenges), and separately vacated and remanded as to a single claim of U.S. Patent No. 10,869,169 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2026, No. 24-2178). In Apple v. Fintiv (IPR2022-00976 and related proceedings), he acted as lead counsel for Apple against the patent owner whose parallel litigation produced the precedential Fintiv discretionary-denial framework; the Federal Circuit upheld Apple's PTAB win invalidating the challenged claims (Dec. 8, 2025) and again in February 2026. He is lead counsel for Intel (with AMD) in the 2025 IPR filings against Advanced Cluster Systems, where the parties litigated Director-level discretionary denial and requests for rehearing. He also appeared for Apple at the Federal Circuit in Apple v. Corephotonics (No. 22-2288). I did not find a verifiable reported outcome for the SMART Mobile Technologies matter.

PTAB/IPR experience. This is the core of his practice and is extensively documented: he is a registered patent attorney with a long PTAB track record, recognized among the most active and best-performing petitioner counsel in successive Patexia IPR/PTAB and Federal Circuit Intelligence Reports (2018 through 2025), and his firm's Patent Trials group reports more than 500 PTAB matters. He appears in IPR proceedings routinely, including Director-level discretionary-denial briefing under the post-Fintiv framework.

Bar and education. Admitted in Texas (1999) and before the USPTO; admitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. J.D., University of Dayton (1999); B.S., Computer Science, Michigan State University (1996) — per Haynes and Boone's own biography.