Mark Supko is a co-chair of Crowell & Moring's Patent and ITC Litigation Group. He is a trial lawyer whose practice has been dedicated to IP litigation for more than 25 years, with a heavy emphasis on patent litigation in the computer, electrical, and mechanical arts, serving corporate clients in diverse industries including automotive, aerospace, consumer electronics, and telecommunications. Before pursuing a career in the law, Mark was a systems engineer for the world's largest automaker. Mark is recognized by Chambers USA as a leading lawyer in the D.C. Intellectual Property and D.C. Intellectual Property: Litigation categories.

Mark is experienced in all aspects of patent litigation, from pre-suit investigations through trial and appeal. He has successfully litigated patent infringement cases in federal district courts across the country, has argued appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has handled Section 337 cases before the U.S. International Trade Commission, has litigated Section 1498 cases before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and has led teams in inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Mark has first-chaired cases involving a wide variety of technologies, including automobile navigation systems, automotive braking systems, wireless communications, internet infrastructure and applications, consumer electronics, digital imaging, oil refining, financial services, and medical devices. These cases have come in all shapes and sizes, ranging from defending some of the largest companies in the world from patents being asserted against entire industry segments, to representation of small companies asserting their crown jewel patents against isolated infringers.

Mark represents clients in enforcing their patent rights against infringers and in defending against the enforcement efforts of others, with considerable experience asserting patents in competitor cases and defending cases brought by non-practicing entities (NPEs). He also has experience litigating other types of intellectual property matters, including trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and trade secret misappropriation. Mark recently was lead trial counsel for the plaintiff in a case involving computer-based train control technology that resulted in a jury verdict of willful infringement and a multimillion damages award. In another recent case, he was lead appellate counsel in a case involving an inventorship dispute over blockbuster prostate cancer drugs that resulted in affirmance of the client’s trial court wins.

In addition to litigation, Mark's practice involves counseling clients on matters relating to the acquisition, protection, and enforcement of intellectual property rights. He has significant experience in post-grant validity challenges before the USPTO, including IPRs and ex parte reexaminations, and preparation of legal opinions relating to patent validity, enforceability, and infringement. He also has been extensively involved in licensing of intellectual property, including establishment of licensing programs through both adversarial and non-adversarial means.

Mark is also active in the firm's pro bono program, focusing his community service efforts on defensive asylum cases before the U.S. Immigration Court. He has successfully represented numerous victims of persecution at the hands of foreign governments in securing political asylum in the United States.

Representative Cases

  • Representing Graco Children’s Products and its supplier, Wonderland Nurserygoods of Taiwan, in a multi-forum patent litigation against Baby Trend and three of its suppliers in China. Brought ITC action against Baby Trend’s U.S. imports of strollers and playards infringing four patents to Graco’s famous Pack ’n Play playards and Sit ‘n Stand strollers, with parallel actions in the Central District of California. ITC trial expected in September 2022. (Certain Playards & Strollers). 
  • Represented Siemens in a wide-ranging, multi-forum intellectual property dispute involving Positive Train Control technology, including a jury trial win resulting in a finding of willful infringement and a $15 million damages award, and including defense of 15 inter partes review (IPR) petitions before the USPTO. Siemens Industry Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies, No. 1:16-cv-284 (D. Del.).
  • Represented several University of California scientists in two appeals arising from an inventorship dispute over patents covering blockbuster prostate cancer treatment drugs, resulting in affirmances of judgments entered by the district court following a bench trial in one case and grant of dismissal in the other. Chen v. Jung et al., Appeal Nos. 2020-1255, -1257 (Fed. Cir.).
  • Defended Honeywell in a patent infringement suit filed by a non-practicing entity relating to mobile computers implementing various wireless communications standards. Sisval International v. Honeywell, No. 1:19-cv-1143 (D. Del.).
  • Defended BAE Systems in a trade secrets misappropriation action relating to the development of a next-generation light armored vehicle for the U.S. Army, successfully defeating claims for injunctive relief that could have threatened a $750 million development contract. Raytheon v BAE Systems, No. 1:19-cv-251 (E.D. Va.).
  • Representing Cybergenetics in a patent infringement suit against its primary competitor involving computer-based probabilistic genotyping systems used for forensic analysis of evidence samples containing DNA mixtures. Cybergenetics v. Institute of Environmental Science and Research, No. 5:19-cv-1197 (N.D. Ohio).
  • Defended Avaya in a patent infringement suit brought by a non-practicing entity against suppliers of network communication equipment compliant with the IEEE’s Power Over Ethernet standard. Network-1 Technologies v. Avaya et al., No. 6:11-cv-492 (E.D. Tex.).
  • Defended General Motors and OnStar in a multi-forum patent infringement dispute involving a smartwatch-based mobile app for controlling vehicle security and diagnostics functions, applying an aggressive counter-offensive against the plaintiff and its principal that forced the plaintiff to drop its complaints in both the district court and the ITC. Intellectual Capital Consulting v. General Motors and OnStar, No. 2:15-cv-917 (E.D. Tex.).
  • Represented amicus General Motors in a Federal Circuit appeal of a preliminary injunction against a supplier that threatened the supply of lithium ion batteries used in General Motors' electric vehicles, resulting in reversal of the injunction. Celgard v. LG Chem, No. 2014-1675 (Fed. Cir.).
  • Represented plaintiffs Bendix and Knorr-Bremse in a patent infringement suit against a main competitor involving air disk brakes for commercial vehicles, securing a jury verdict of willful infringement, a permanent injunction, compensatory and enhanced damages, and a multimillion dollar attorneys' fee award. Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems v. Haldex Brake Products, No. 1:09-CV-176 (N.D. Ohio).
  • Represented respondent General Motors in a Section 337 investigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission seeking to exclude importation of vehicles equipped with in-dash navigation systems, successfully pressuring the Complainant to terminate the investigation at the close of fact discovery. Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-814 (U.S.I.T.C.).