1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Molly A. Jones

Molly A. Jones

Counsel
Counsel
bW9qb25lc0Bjcm93ZWxsLmNvbQ==
VCard
VCard

Areas of Focus

Overview

Clients turn to Molly A. Jones as a strategic advisor and critical thinker to help optimize their business goals. As part of Crowell’s Litigation and Intellectual Property practices, Molly focuses on helping companies protect their technology assets, drawing on her deep litigation experience that encompasses the full range of intellectual property law, including patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and copyright issues.

Combining her background as a patent litigator and stand-up trial attorney with core skill sets in a wide range of technology-related matters, Molly counsels clients in complex litigation across the country and across industries, including software, biotechnology, higher education, health care, and food and beverage. She prides herself on delivering exceptional client service and building a strong rapport with the parties she represents.

Molly serves as an editor of Crowell & Moring’s Trade Secrets Trends blog, offering analysis and commentary on trade secrets protection, disputes, enforcement, and other closely-related areas, such as employment law and cybersecurity. She has co-authored amicus curiae briefs in two landmark patent cases at the U.S. Supreme Court.   

Molly has also built an active pro bono practice with special emphasis on immigration issues and impact litigation on the pressing issues of our day. She serves on the board of directors for the Family Violence Law Center in Oakland.

Career & Education

|

    • Duke University, B.A., With Distinction, biology, 2008
    • University of California, Hastings College of the Law, J.D., cum Laude, 2014
    • Duke University, B.A., With Distinction, biology, 2008
    • University of California, Hastings College of the Law, J.D., cum Laude, 2014

    • California
    • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • California
    • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Molly's 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....

View All Insights

Representative Matters

  • Representing the University of California in obtaining a $50 million settlement and public apology from the University of Southern California and one of its faculty members over USC’s 2015 raid on an Alzheimer’s Disease research program at UC San Diego, a result reported on the front page of the Los Angeles Times as a "jaw-dropping conclusion" to "unprecedented litigation" concerning the protection of academic research.
  • Confidential Failed ERP Installation Arbitration (San Francisco JAMS ADR, 2019). Represented an international provider of online educational services in a confidential arbitration against multinational software corporation in a recovery action related to a failed Enterprise Resource Management (ERP) software installation. Matter resolved on eve of merits hearing. 
  • Software License Audit Defense. Represented several software licensees, in numerous industries, in contentious software audits and licensing disputes against global enterprise software providers. 

Molly's 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....

View All Insights

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)

Firm News | 3 min read | 02.08.24

ScentAir Wins Delaware Jury Verdict Against Prolitec Patent Claims

Press Coverage | 02.02.24

Litigator Of The Week Runners-Up And Shout Outs

Press Coverage | 01.29.24

Del. Jury Finds ScentAir Didn't Infringe Liquid Air Freshener IP
|

View All Insights

Practices

Molly's 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....

View All Insights