Patent Litigation
Overview
Patent litigation is a core strength at Crowell & Moring. With 100+ attorneys and patent agents, the patent litigation team at Crowell & Moring is widely recognized by leading industry publications such as Chambers USA, Chambers Europe, U.S. News & World Report Best Law Firms, Patexia, and IAM Patent 1000 as among the top practitioners in the field.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.22.25
The Federal Circuit recently addressed a case of first impression involving AI patented technology under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to hold that “claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment” are not patent eligible. This case provides helpful guidance for patent prosecutors on how to draft claims directed to AI technology to be patent-eligible and for litigators on how to attack or defend AI patents.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.10.25
Hikma and Amici Curiae Ask Supreme Court to Revisit Induced Infringement by Generic “Skinny Labels”
Firm News | 2 min read | 04.07.25
The Daily Journal Names Kent B. Goss and Jon Gurka Among Top IP Lawyers
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.01.25
Hatch-Waxman PTE for Reissue Patents Should Be Calculated From the Original Patent’s Issue Date
Representative Matters
- Advanced Media Networks v. Vizada et al., No. 1:10-CV-194 (S.D.N.Y.): Represented defendant Vizada in a suit involving satellite communication systems, securing a favorable settlement providing the client with freedom to operate in the market for the accused technology.
- Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. (M.D. Pa.) (Fed. Cir): Represented plaintiff in a jury trial concerning electrical fittings in September 2009. The jury found in favor of Arlington on infringement, willful infringement, and breach of contract. The jury also awarded Arlington its lost profits. The judgment was affirmed on appeal.
- Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. (M.D. Pa.) (Fed. Cir.): Represented plaintiff in a four day contempt hearing in which the court found the defendant in contempt of an injunction by manufacturing products that were "colorable imitations" of the previously enjoined products. The court enjoined the competitor's new products and awarded Arlington lost profits and attorney fees. Arlington also recently won a motion to dismiss a premature appeal of the contempt order filed before the sanctions were awarded.
- Automotive Technologies Int'l v. OnStar, No. 4:11-CV-15604 (E.D. Mich.): Represented defendant OnStar in a suit involving vehicle-based Internet communications. We forced a voluntary dismissal of the complaint with prejudice after securing a transfer to OnStar's home forum.
- Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, et al. v. Haldex Brake Products, No. 1:09-CV-176 (N.D. Ohio): Represented manufacturer of air disk brakes systems for tractor-trailers in week-long jury trial on patent infringement claim against prime competitor, winning jury verdict of willful infringement and subsequent award of permanent injunction, enhanced damages and attorney's fees.
- Curtiss-Wright v. Velan, No. 04-CV-1157 (W.D. Tex.): Represented plaintiff Curtiss-Wright Flow Control in a suit against a competitor involving industrial valves used to dehead coke drums during oil refining operations. Following the grant of a preliminary injunction, we secured a settlement that kept the competitor's accused valve out of market.
- Colorquick v. Kodak, Nos. 6:08-CV-165, 6:06-CV-390 (E.D. Tex.): Represented defendant Kodak in two related actions involving a process for virtual proofing of digital print jobs. We secured a favorable settlement after claim construction.
- Fernandez Innovative Technologies v. BMW and Mercedes et al., No. 07-CV-1397 (N.D. Ill.): Represented defendants BMW and Mercedes in a suit involving the transmission of advertisements to vehicles using GPS and Internet technologies. We forced a favorable settlement immediately after a Markman hearing.
- Greenville Communications, LLC v. Verizon Wireless (D.N.J. 2012) (Fed. Cir.): Won judgment of non-infringement for Sprint Nextel. Non-infringement judgment was recently affirmed on appeal.
- Medien Patent Verwaltung AG v. Deluxe Entertainment (S.D.N.Y.): Represented inventor of anti-piracy technology in patent infringement suit against world's largest supplier of motion picture film prints, winning summary judgment of infringement and non-obviousness followed by favorable settlement shortly before trial.
- Rembrandt Data Technologies, LP v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., et al., No. 1:08-CV-1009 (E.D. Va.): No. 2010-1002 (Fed. Cir.). Represented Canon entities in an action involving fax modem technology. We won on summary judgment in district court; decision affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.22.25
The Federal Circuit recently addressed a case of first impression involving AI patented technology under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to hold that “claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment” are not patent eligible. This case provides helpful guidance for patent prosecutors on how to draft claims directed to AI technology to be patent-eligible and for litigators on how to attack or defend AI patents.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.10.25
Hikma and Amici Curiae Ask Supreme Court to Revisit Induced Infringement by Generic “Skinny Labels”
Firm News | 2 min read | 04.07.25
The Daily Journal Names Kent B. Goss and Jon Gurka Among Top IP Lawyers
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.01.25
Hatch-Waxman PTE for Reissue Patents Should Be Calculated From the Original Patent’s Issue Date
Insights
- |
01.10.24
Litigation Forecast 2024
- |
06.06.23
Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal
- |
09.01.22
The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law
Professionals
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.22.25
The Federal Circuit recently addressed a case of first impression involving AI patented technology under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to hold that “claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment” are not patent eligible. This case provides helpful guidance for patent prosecutors on how to draft claims directed to AI technology to be patent-eligible and for litigators on how to attack or defend AI patents.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.10.25
Hikma and Amici Curiae Ask Supreme Court to Revisit Induced Infringement by Generic “Skinny Labels”
Firm News | 2 min read | 04.07.25
The Daily Journal Names Kent B. Goss and Jon Gurka Among Top IP Lawyers
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.01.25
Hatch-Waxman PTE for Reissue Patents Should Be Calculated From the Original Patent’s Issue Date
Practices
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.22.25
The Federal Circuit recently addressed a case of first impression involving AI patented technology under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to hold that “claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment” are not patent eligible. This case provides helpful guidance for patent prosecutors on how to draft claims directed to AI technology to be patent-eligible and for litigators on how to attack or defend AI patents.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.10.25
Hikma and Amici Curiae Ask Supreme Court to Revisit Induced Infringement by Generic “Skinny Labels”
Firm News | 2 min read | 04.07.25
The Daily Journal Names Kent B. Goss and Jon Gurka Among Top IP Lawyers
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.01.25
Hatch-Waxman PTE for Reissue Patents Should Be Calculated From the Original Patent’s Issue Date