Andy X. Yu

Associate vCard


  • Northwestern University (JD, 2011)
  • North Carolina State University (PhD, Bioinformatics and Statistics, 2004)
  • University of Science and Technology of China (BS, Biology, 1999)

Bar Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • Massachusetts
  • New Jersey
  • New York
  • Texas


  • Chinese

Using a strong background in bioinformatics, Andy represents his clients in patent litigation matters on both the plaintiff and defendant side. Andy’s particular areas of experience include bioinformatics, software development, data mining, and machine learning.

Before joining the firm, Andy practiced as an associate with an intellectual property firm in their Austin, Texas office. He also has significant professional experiences as a marketing and data analyst for financial and pharmaceutical firms. In particular, he has counseled various generic pharmaceutical clients on legal and financial strategies on Paragraph IV ANDA filings and Hatch-Waxman litigation.

Representative Matters

  • Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-925) Represented owner of portfolio of communications and computing patents from former enterprise communications business unit of large multinational innovation company. An ITC investigation was instituted in August 2014 as to respondent entities Apple, Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics and HTC Corporation. Google participated as an intervenor. The investigation resolved prior to evidentiary hearing in June of 2015.
  • Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884) Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the original Silicon Graphics, now known as Graphics Properties Holdings, as complainant in the ITC. Investigation was instituted in June 2013 and among the respondent entities were Panasonic, Toshiba, Vizio, and ZTE. Most respondents settled. After an evidentiary hearing held over several days in May 2014, on August 29, 2014 Mintz Levin successfully obtained a recommendation for a Limited Exclusion Order against the remaining respondent, which chose to settle while Commission review of the Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Determination was pending.