1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Andrew M. Spitzer

Andrew M. Spitzer

Associate
Associate
YXNwaXR6ZXJAY3Jvd2VsbC5jb20g
VCardLinkedIn
VCardLinkedIn

Areas of Focus

Overview

Andrew Spitzer is an associate in Crowell & Moring’s Chicago office, where he splits his practice between a combination of IP transactional work and IP litigation. Andrew’s deep understanding of a variety wide range of technologies helps clients bridge the gap between law and technology.

As part of his transactional work, Andrew helps navigate the splitting and merging of IP portfolios during mergers and acquisitions, including by drafting and negotiating assignment and licensing agreements regarding all aspects of IP: patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secrets.

Andrew has been a key member of a number of patent and trade secret litigation matters spanning a variety of different industries, including pharmaceuticals, financial technology, software, and chemical and mechanical process manufacturing.

Andrew has developed a robust pro bono practice while at Crowell, with a focus on immigration and asylum cases, and is a member of the firm’s Pro Bono Immigration Committee.  

During law school, Andrew served as the executive editor for the Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property. Andrew was also heavily involved in moot court, where he was the runner-up of the Julius H. Miner Moot Court Competition and coached Northwestern’s Patent Moot Court team to the national semi-finals of the 2020 Giles S. Rich Memorial Moot Court Competition. Andrew also served as the treasurer for the Northwestern Intellectual Property Law Society.

Career & Education

|

    • University of Notre Dame, B.S., magna cum laude, chemical engineering, 2018
    • Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, J.D., cum laude, 2021
    • University of Notre Dame, B.S., magna cum laude, chemical engineering, 2018
    • Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, J.D., cum laude, 2021

    • Illinois
    • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
    • Illinois
    • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Andrew's Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.18.25

Don’t (Es)stop Me Now: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Collateral Estoppel Analysis for Non-Challenged Patent Claims in IPRs

The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., No. 23-1359 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2025), holding that collateral estoppel does not preclude a patentee from asserting any unadjudicated claims of a patent where other claims of the same patent were held unpatentable in an inter partes review (“IPR”) by the Patent Trial and Appeals board (“PTAB”)....

View All Insights

Recognition

  • Julius H. Miner Moot Court Competition: Runner-Up 

Andrew's Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.18.25

Don’t (Es)stop Me Now: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Collateral Estoppel Analysis for Non-Challenged Patent Claims in IPRs

The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., No. 23-1359 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2025), holding that collateral estoppel does not preclude a patentee from asserting any unadjudicated claims of a patent where other claims of the same patent were held unpatentable in an inter partes review (“IPR”) by the Patent Trial and Appeals board (“PTAB”)....

View All Insights

Practices

Andrew's Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.18.25

Don’t (Es)stop Me Now: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Collateral Estoppel Analysis for Non-Challenged Patent Claims in IPRs

The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., No. 23-1359 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2025), holding that collateral estoppel does not preclude a patentee from asserting any unadjudicated claims of a patent where other claims of the same patent were held unpatentable in an inter partes review (“IPR”) by the Patent Trial and Appeals board (“PTAB”)....

View All Insights