Law Firm Partner
Registered Patent Attorney
University of Florida, B.S.
Boston University, J.D.
Andriy Lytvyn is a shareholder at Smith & Hopen. He is a Board Certified Specialist in Intellectual Property Law. Mr. Lytvyn received his J.D. from Boston University School of Law, where he held the position of article editor of the Journal of Science and Technology Law. Mr. Lytvyn earned a concentration in Intellectual Property Law by completing a wide array of specialized law courses including IP Law, Patent Law, Copyright Law, Trademarks & Unfair Competition, Patent Prosecution, IP Licensing, IP & the Internet, and International IP Law.
Mr. Lytvyn graduated with honors from the University of Florida with B.S. degrees in Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering. His academic accomplishments were recognized with several prestigious scholarships including the Boeing Company Scholarship, Exxon Mobile Scholarship, and UF College of Engineering Dean’s Scholarship. Mr. Lytvyn is admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and is a member of the Florida Bar.
Mr. Lytvyn specializes in areas of patent law pertaining to mechanical arts, aerospace technologies, software, and telecommunications. He has prosecuted over a hundred issued United States utility patents and assisted foreign counsel with prosecution of numerous patents issued abroad. Mr. Lytvyn also specializes in post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and has served as lead counsel in a number of high-profile cases.
DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 885 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018), (Appeal from IPR2015-00369 and IPR2015-00373) Outcome: Reversal of PTAB’s invalidity finding. The case involved US Patent No. 6,218,290 asserted against Apple, Inc. for infringement of wireless communications technologies pertaining to Bluetooth peripherals. The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion fully reversing the PTAB’s decisions in the underlying IPRs, thereby upholding validity of the ‘290 Patent.
CBM2013-00047, David W. Gillman v. StoneEagle Services, Inc. Outcome: Non-institution–validity of the patent preserved. First patent to have every claim survive a CBM review.
IPR2015-00569 & IPR2016-01414, Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc. v. StoneEagle Services, Inc. Outcome: Full non-institution in IPR2015-00569 and non-institution with respect to all claims asserted in litigation in IPR2016-01414. As a result of this win, StoneEagle received a multi-million dollar verdict in the underlying litigation.
IPR2016-00539, Vista Outdoor Operations, LLC v. Liberty Ammunition, Inc. Outcome: Non-institution–validity of the patent preserved. In the underlying litigation, U.S. Court of Claims awarded a patent infringement verdict amounting to approximately $70 million over the life of the patent. This is the largest known U.S. Court of Claims patent infringement award in history.
IPR2018-00504, Blasters, Inc. v Waterblasting LLC, (Represented Petitioner) Outcome: Invalidation of all material claims. Favorably settled during pendency of the Federal Circuit appeal.
IPR2014-01030, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc. Outcome: Non-institution with respect to several claims. Settled during pendency of the Federal Circuit appeal.
IPR2014-01493, Samsung Electronics Co., LTD v. DSS Technology Management, Inc. Outcome: Non-institution with respect to several claims. Settled during pendency of the Federal Circuit appeal. Joined with IPR2014-01030.