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.   

From pre-litigation investigations through trial and appeal, our attorneys work with our clients to attain the best results and meet the client's business objectives. Many of our patent litigators have substantial technical knowledge garnered both from academic and industry experience, enabling them to understand not only the technology at issue but, just as importantly, how that technology fits into a client's business strategies.

Excellence in courtroom skills, business-oriented strategies, and broad technical know-how are hallmarks of our patent litigation practice. Our patent litigators are trial lawyers first and foremost, and are particularly adept at presenting complex technical issues in straight-forward, understandable terms that strike a chord with lay jurors and judges. That skill set recently resulted in a jury trial win for Siemens Mobility, where all eight of its asserted patents were found valid and infringed, and over $15 million in damages were awarded. On behalf of our client Cook Medical, we convinced the district court to grant Cook’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity, resulting in dismissal of the action, which we successfully defended on appeal.

While we never shy away from taking a case to trial, we recognize that often it is in a client’s best interest to dispose of disputes more expeditiously and economically. Indeed, since cases are often effectively won or lost at the claim construction stage, our experienced litigators bring the full force of their patent and trial experience to bear on "Markman" claim construction hearings. Recently, a dispositive claim construction in favor of our client resulted in the patentee’s immediate dismissal of a Section 337 Investigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).

We regularly handle cases in all of the major patent venues across the country, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, Delaware, the Eastern District of Virginia, Central and Northern Districts of California, the Western District of Wisconsin, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Southern District of New York.  In addition, we have extensive experience with Section 337 cases before the ITC, and Section 1498 cases before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  And we routinely handle appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  Our patent team also includes lawyers with a focus on Hatch-Waxman matters, including Paragraph IV litigation and the successful commercialization of generic drugs.

When additional technical or regulatory expertise is needed, our litigators can also draw on the diverse strengths of our patent prosecution attorneys. Crowell & Moring is ranked among the leading patent procurement firms in the country. One of our partners formerly served as acting director of the USPTO and over 70 of our lawyers and patent agents are registered to practice before the USPTO. Our litigation and prosecution experience, coupled with our deep technical bench makes us particularly effective in handling all types of post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, often in coordination with parallel litigation.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.02.24

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinion Underscores Tension in Interpretation of the Safe Harbor of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)

On March 25, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a case with significant implications for the application of the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). This case involved the importation of two transcatheter heart valve systems by Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., an India-based medical device company, to San Francisco for a medical conference. According to Meril, these heart valve systems, part of Meril’s Myval System designed to treat heart disease, were never displayed or offered for sale at the conference but were instead stored in a bag in a hotel closet and later in a storage room. The Court’s decision to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Meril brings to light the nuances of applying the safe harbor provision in patent infringement cases....

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.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.02.24

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinion Underscores Tension in Interpretation of the Safe Harbor of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)

On March 25, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a case with significant implications for the application of the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). This case involved the importation of two transcatheter heart valve systems by Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., an India-based medical device company, to San Francisco for a medical conference. According to Meril, these heart valve systems, part of Meril’s Myval System designed to treat heart disease, were never displayed or offered for sale at the conference but were instead stored in a bag in a hotel closet and later in a storage room. The Court’s decision to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Meril brings to light the nuances of applying the safe harbor provision in patent infringement cases....

|

Professionals

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.02.24

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinion Underscores Tension in Interpretation of the Safe Harbor of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)

On March 25, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a case with significant implications for the application of the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). This case involved the importation of two transcatheter heart valve systems by Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., an India-based medical device company, to San Francisco for a medical conference. According to Meril, these heart valve systems, part of Meril’s Myval System designed to treat heart disease, were never displayed or offered for sale at the conference but were instead stored in a bag in a hotel closet and later in a storage room. The Court’s decision to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Meril brings to light the nuances of applying the safe harbor provision in patent infringement cases....

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.02.24

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinion Underscores Tension in Interpretation of the Safe Harbor of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)

On March 25, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a case with significant implications for the application of the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). This case involved the importation of two transcatheter heart valve systems by Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., an India-based medical device company, to San Francisco for a medical conference. According to Meril, these heart valve systems, part of Meril’s Myval System designed to treat heart disease, were never displayed or offered for sale at the conference but were instead stored in a bag in a hotel closet and later in a storage room. The Court’s decision to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Meril brings to light the nuances of applying the safe harbor provision in patent infringement cases....