L. Andrew Tseng

Partner
Registered Patent Attorney

617.204.5122

More ways to contact L. Andrew Tseng

Andrew focuses his practice on patent and trade secret litigation, including pharmaceutical patent disputes under the Hatch-Waxman Act and BPCIA. He regularly litigates in federal and state courts and before the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Speaking Engagements

ACI 22nd Annual Paragraph IV Disputes 2026
Overview
Representative Matters
Insights
Awards

Andrew represents clients of all sizes in patent and trade secret litigation, including pharmaceutical patent disputes under the Hatch-Waxman Act and the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), as well as proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). He draws on his education and experience to provide services across a wide range of technologies and industry sectors, including pharmaceuticals, biologics, medical devices, biotechnology, image sensors and optical systems, computer vision, telecommunications, computer systems, and software.

Andrew has extensive experience litigating patent cases through claim construction, dispositive motions, and trial across a range of technologies, including medical devices, telecommunications, computer vision, and software. He has also represented pharmaceutical and biotech companies in patent and trade secret matters, with experience spanning the evaluation of competitive products, review of clinical trial disclosures and regulatory submissions, and analysis of prior art landscapes. Andrew leverages his scientific training to navigate the intersection of law and science, from depositions of expert witnesses to applying complex scientific evidence to claim construction and invalidity issues.

Andrew holds a Ph.D. in molecular and cellular pharmacology from the University of Miami and brings foundational knowledge in molecular and cell biology and biochemistry, with particular knowledge in drug development, cardiovascular pharmacology, and neuropharmacology. His doctoral research focused on receptor signaling pathways in neurons and protein degradation pathways and their role in neurodegenerative disease. Andrew’s scientific and technical background, spanning pharmacology, molecular biology, biochemistry, cell biology, genetics, and neuroscience, underpins his work in technically complex patent and regulatory disputes.

  • Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC et al v. Sandoz Inc. (three related actions), United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
  • In Re: Denosumab Patent Litigation (MDL No. 3138), including Amgen Inc. et al v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
  • Impax Laboratories, LLC v. Qilu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al (two related actions), United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
  • Impax Laboratories, LLC v. Biocon Pharma Ltd et al, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
  • Impax Laboratories, LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. et al, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
  • VideoLabs, Inc. v. HP Inc. (two related actions), United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
  • Sonate Corporation v. Beyond Meat, Inc. (jury trial, $39.8 million damages award), United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
  • VideoLabs, Inc. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
  • AtriCure, Inc. v. Meng et al, United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
  • Certain Video Processing Devices and Products Containing the Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1323.
  • Science Applications International Corp. v. The United States, et al., United States Court of Federal Claims.
  • Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S and 3Shape TRIOS A/S, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Waco Division.
  • Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Inc., United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • 3Shape A/S v. Align Technology, Inc., United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • Certain Dental and Orthodontic Scanners and Software, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1144.
  • Certain Color Intraoral Scanners and Related Hardware and Software, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1091.
  • Certain Intraoral Scanners and Related Hardware and Software, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1090.
  • FGH Biotech, Inc. v. Medivation, Inc., and Pfizer, Inc., District Court of Harris County, Texas.
  • Medivation, Inc. v. FGH Biotech, Inc. et al, Superior Court of the State of California County of San Francisco.
  • CallWave Communication LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • CallWave Communication LLC v. Verizon Services Corp et al., United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • CallWave Communication LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc. et al, United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • CallWave Communication LLC v. Fonality Inc., United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • CallWave Communication LLC v. 8×8, Inc., United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Overview

Andrew represents clients of all sizes in patent and trade secret litigation, including pharmaceutical patent disputes under the Hatch-Waxman Act and the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), as well as proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). He draws on his education and experience to provide services across a wide range of technologies and industry sectors, including pharmaceuticals, biologics, medical devices, biotechnology, image sensors and optical systems, computer vision, telecommunications, computer systems, and software.

Andrew has extensive experience litigating patent cases through claim construction, dispositive motions, and trial across a range of technologies, including medical devices, telecommunications, computer vision, and software. He has also represented pharmaceutical and biotech companies in patent and trade secret matters, with experience spanning the evaluation of competitive products, review of clinical trial disclosures and regulatory submissions, and analysis of prior art landscapes. Andrew leverages his scientific training to navigate the intersection of law and science, from depositions of expert witnesses to applying complex scientific evidence to claim construction and invalidity issues.

Andrew holds a Ph.D. in molecular and cellular pharmacology from the University of Miami and brings foundational knowledge in molecular and cell biology and biochemistry, with particular knowledge in drug development, cardiovascular pharmacology, and neuropharmacology. His doctoral research focused on receptor signaling pathways in neurons and protein degradation pathways and their role in neurodegenerative disease. Andrew’s scientific and technical background, spanning pharmacology, molecular biology, biochemistry, cell biology, genetics, and neuroscience, underpins his work in technically complex patent and regulatory disputes.

Representation Matters
  • Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC et al v. Sandoz Inc. (three related actions), United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
  • In Re: Denosumab Patent Litigation (MDL No. 3138), including Amgen Inc. et al v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
  • Impax Laboratories, LLC v. Qilu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al (two related actions), United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
  • Impax Laboratories, LLC v. Biocon Pharma Ltd et al, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
  • Impax Laboratories, LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. et al, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
  • VideoLabs, Inc. v. HP Inc. (two related actions), United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
  • Sonate Corporation v. Beyond Meat, Inc. (jury trial, $39.8 million damages award), United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
  • VideoLabs, Inc. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
  • AtriCure, Inc. v. Meng et al, United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
  • Certain Video Processing Devices and Products Containing the Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1323.
  • Science Applications International Corp. v. The United States, et al., United States Court of Federal Claims.
  • Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S and 3Shape TRIOS A/S, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Waco Division.
  • Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Inc., United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • 3Shape A/S v. Align Technology, Inc., United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • Certain Dental and Orthodontic Scanners and Software, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1144.
  • Certain Color Intraoral Scanners and Related Hardware and Software, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1091.
  • Certain Intraoral Scanners and Related Hardware and Software, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1090.
  • FGH Biotech, Inc. v. Medivation, Inc., and Pfizer, Inc., District Court of Harris County, Texas.
  • Medivation, Inc. v. FGH Biotech, Inc. et al, Superior Court of the State of California County of San Francisco.
  • CallWave Communication LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • CallWave Communication LLC v. Verizon Services Corp et al., United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • CallWave Communication LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc. et al, United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • CallWave Communication LLC v. Fonality Inc., United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • CallWave Communication LLC v. 8×8, Inc., United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Insights

Speaking Engagements

ACI 22nd Annual Paragraph IV Disputes 2026

Speaking Engagements

Economic Damages in Trade Secret Cases: Key Insights and Strategies

Firm Events

Safeguarding Your Business Against Corporate Espionage

Firm News

Boston Magazine Recognizes 10 Troutman Pepper Attorneys as Top Lawyers

See all insights from L. Andrew Tseng

Awards

Top areas of focus

  • Lead articles editor, IDEA®: The Intellectual Property Law Review, University of New Hampshire School of Law

Education

  • University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law, J.D., magna cum laude, 2013, lead articles editor, IDEA®: The Intellectual Property Law Review
  • University of Miami, Ph.D., 2010, molecular and cellular pharmacology
  • Cornell University, A.B., 2003, molecular and cell biology

Bar Admissions

  • Massachusetts
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Court Admissions

  • U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit