Jeffrey D. Sanok, Partner Washington, D.C.
jsanok@crowell.com
Phone: +1 202.624.2995
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20004-2595

Jeffrey D. Sanok is a partner and co-chair of the firm's Intellectual Property Group, and he also serves as chair of the firm's Finance Committee. Jeff focuses his intellectual property practice on patent infringement litigation in the District Courts and before the International Trade Commission, post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, including inter parte reviews and ex parte reexaminations, strategic IP development and acquisition, licensing and counseling.

Jeff has litigated throughout the U.S. in the areas of patent infringement, including Section 337 proceedings, trademark infringement and product liability. He is at the forefront in the interplay between patent infringement litigation and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office post-grant proceedings, having filed some of the earliest petitions for inter parte reviews of patents concurrently before a District Court or the Court of Federal Claims. He has argued numerous appeals before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 

Jeff's practical experience encompasses a range of electrical, mechanical, automotive and aeronautical technologies, including telecommunications, networking, computer architectures and software, consumer electronics, manufacturing systems, vehicle control and braking systems, navigation systems and automotive and jet engine systems. Jeff's prior industry experience was with RCA Corporation.

Of note, Jeff was lead counsel for the plaintiff in the landmark en banc decision in Knorr-Bremse Systeme fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp. et al., 383 F.3d 1337 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (en banc), which eliminated the "negative inference" from the failure to disclose on opinion of counsel in willful infringement jurisprudence. Jeff has been recognized consistently by clients and peers as a top intellectual property lawyer in both Chambers USA and Legal 500 United States.

Jeff is admitted to the New York, Virginia and District of Columbia Bars, and is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He is a member of the American Bar Association, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the Federal Circuit Bar Association, and the International Trademark Association. Jeff holds a private pilot license and belongs to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

Representative Cases, Post-Grant Proceedings and Decisions

  • Cruise Control Technologies v. BMW of North America  (D. Del.) (Representing BMW in  patent infringement action involving cruise control system technology).
  • Avaya. v. Network-1 Security Solutions (PTAB, IPR2013-00071) (Representing Petitioner Avaya in inter parte review challenging validity of asserted Network-1 patent involving Power over Ethernet technology).
  • BAE Systems v. Cheetah Omni (PTAB, IPR2013-00175) (Representing Petitioner BAE in inter parte review challenging validity of asserted Cheetah patent involving mid-infrared wavelength light generation using Raman effect).
  • Network-1 Security Solutions v. Avaya (D. Del.) (Representing Avaya in  patent infringement action involving Power over Ethernet technology).
  • Certain Communication Equipment, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-817) (Represented respondent Avaya in International Trade Commission investigation related to Power over Ethernet features in telephones, switches, and wireless access points).
  • Chalumeau Power Systems v. Avaya (D. Del.) (Represented Avaya in patent infringement action involving Power over Ethernet technology).  
  • Medien Patent Verwaltung v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y.). (Representing plaintiff in patent infringement action involving anti-piracy coding for theatrical films).
  • Elen IP LLC v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. et al (W.D Wash). (Represented Bendix and its customers in patent infringement action involving roll stability systems).
  • Adjustable-Height Beds and Components Thereof (337-TA-734). (Represented Complainant Invacare in an investigation related to adjustable hospital beds, obtained consent order excluding accused products from entry into the U.S.).
  • Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems et al. v. Haldex Brake Products, No. 1:09-CV-176 (N.D. Ohio). (Represented plaintiffs in patent infringement action involving air disc brakes for commercial vehicles, securing jury verdict of willful infringement).
  • WABCO Holdings v. Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems (D. N.J.). (Obtained stay pending reexamination on behalf of Bendix in a patent infringement action involving gas compressors).
  • In re Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same (ITC); Cognex Corp. v. MVTec Software GmbH, et al. (D. Mass). (Represented respondent/defendant Fuji America Corp. and respondent Fuji Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. in patent infringement actions at the ITC and district court involving machine-vision system software).
  • Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems et al. v. WABCO Automotive Control Systems, No. 1:09-CV-177 (N.D. Ohio). (Represented plaintiffs in patent infringement action involving air disc brakes for commercial vehicles).
  • Wilco AG v. Packaging Technologies Inspection, LLC, No. 08-635 (D. Del). (Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action involving leak detection apparatus for containers used in food, medical and pharmaceutical industries).
  • Spread Spectrum Screening LLC. v. Eastman Kodak Company (N.D. Ill., W.D.N.Y., Fed. Cir.). (Represented defendant Eastman Kodak Company in a patent infringement action involving halftone printing.  Invalidated the asserted patent via ex parte reexamination, upheld on appeal).
  •  Infinity Computer Products v. Kodak (E.D. Pa.): (Representing Kodak in a multi-defendant patent infringement action involving document scanners).
  • Flashpoint v. Leica Camera AG, et al., (D. Del.). (Represented Leica in patent infringement action involving digital cameras).
  • Fernandez Innovative Technologies v. BMW and Mercedes et al., No. 07-CV-1397 (N.D. Ill.). (Represented BMW in patent infringement action involving vehicle telematics systems).
  • Daisho Seiki, Corp. v. Nissei Industries, (N.D. of Illinois). (Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action involving rotor grinding systems).
  • Rushing v. Kodak (W.D.N.Y.). (Represented Kodak in patent infringement action involving densitometers).
  • R. R. Donnelley v. Kodak (D. Del.). (Represented Kodak in patent infringement action involving variable digital printing software).
  • Tesseron v. Kodak (N.D. Ohio.). (Represented Kodak in patent infringement action involving variable data printing).
  • Henrob Limited v. Böllhoff Systemtechnik GmbH & Co. KG. et al., 2:05-CV-73214 (E.D. MI). (Defended BMW in patent infringement action involving riveting machines).
  • Orion IP, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al., 6:05-CV-322-LED (E.D. TX). (Defended BMW in patent infringement action involving computerized proposal generation system).
  • Oakley, Inc. v. BMW of North America, LLC, SACV05-1099AHS (C.D. CA). (Defended BMW in patent infringement action involving sunglasses).
  • The Massachusetts Institute of Technology et al. v. Abacus Software, Inc. et al., _F.3d _ (Fed. Cir. 2006) Case No. 501 CV 344, (E.D. TX). (Defended Corel in patent infringement action involving color reproduction system).
  • Knorr-Bremse Systeme fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp. et al., 383 F.3d 1337 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (en banc). (Represented Knorr-Bremse in patent infringement action involving air disc brakes; secured permanent injunction and willful infringement).
  • Knorr-Bremse Systeme fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp. et al., 133 F.Supp2d 833 (E.D. Va. 2001).
  • Knorr-Bremse Systeme fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp. et al., 133 F.Supp2d 843 (E.D. Va. 2001).

Conferences



Affiliations

Admitted to practice: District of Columbia, New York, Virginia, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)



Highlights, News & Knowledge


Speeches & Presentations



Publications



Client Alerts & Newsletters



Firm News & Announcements

May.19.2015 Chambers USA Ranks 53 Crowell & Moring Attorneys and 20 Leading Practice Areas Among Best in U.S.
Jan.13.2015 Crowell & Moring Releases Third Annual Litigation Forecast Report and Inaugural Regulatory Forecast
May.23.2014 Chambers USA Ranks 51 Crowell & Moring Attorneys and 19 Leading Practice Areas Among Best in U.S.
May.24.2013 Chambers USA Ranks 45 Crowell & Moring Attorneys and 19 Leading Practice Areas Among Best in U.S.
Jun.07.2012 Chambers USA Ranks 45 Crowell & Moring Attorneys and 18 Leading Practice Areas Among Best in U.S.
Jun.13.2008 Chambers USA Ranks 33 Crowell & Moring Attorneys and 13 Practice Areas as Among Best In Class
Jun.21.2007 Chambers USA Ranks 28 Crowell & Moring Attorneys and 13 Practice Areas
Mar.19.2007 Legal 500 United States Ranks Crowell & Moring’s Intellectual Property Group
Background image