Robert B. Kornweiss
Overview
Rob Kornweiss is a versatile intellectual property and litigation counsel. Rob’s practice focuses on patent, trade secret, and complex contractual matters in a variety of industries, including software, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, and insurance. He has represented clients in state and federal courts, arbitration, and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and International Trade Commission. Rob also drafts and negotiates contracts for clients to protect and monetize their IP.
Rob is a counsel in Crowell & Moring’s New York office. His recent pro bono experience includes counseling and drafting contracts for nonprofits regarding copyright, trademark, and IP licensing, as well as representing an individual in an immigration case.
Career & Education
- Duke University School of Law, J.D., 2015
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, B.A., with distinction, economics, 2012
- District of Columbia
- New York
- U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Professional Activities and Memberships
- American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section
- Trade Secrets and Interference with Contracts Committee
- American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section
- Spanish
Robert's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.05.23
Claim Construction – We Agree . . . Or Do We? – One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Sometimes we think we have an agreement—only to find out that we do not agree about the meaning of the agreement, and therefore have no agreement at all. This is, of course, a common fact pattern in a contract dispute, but it is also something to look out for in the claim construction process. An agreed claim construction is a far cry from an agreement as to the meaning of that construction as applied to the accused products. We therefore have the counter-intuitive situation where an agreed construction becomes hotly disputed. When this happens, it is a reminder that even when we agree on a construction that we think favors us, we should not assume that the opposing party, court, or jury will see it that way.
Firm News | 9 min read | 08.17.23
Firm News | 7 min read | 08.18.22
Publication | 07.07.22
Trade Secret Litigation Is Different: Should Patent Law Concepts Be Imported?
Representative Matters
- Representing Lonza Walkersville and other pharmaceutical companies in ongoing patent infringement and trade secret cases.
- Represented Graco Children’s Products and Wonderland Nurserygoods in a patent infringement investigation before the ITC.
- Secured a preliminary injunction through trial on behalf of Lonza Walkersville in a patent infringement case involving point-of-care cell therapy technology.
- Resolved a patent infringement case for Agilent regarding an N-glycan labeling reagent.
Robert's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.05.23
Claim Construction – We Agree . . . Or Do We? – One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Sometimes we think we have an agreement—only to find out that we do not agree about the meaning of the agreement, and therefore have no agreement at all. This is, of course, a common fact pattern in a contract dispute, but it is also something to look out for in the claim construction process. An agreed claim construction is a far cry from an agreement as to the meaning of that construction as applied to the accused products. We therefore have the counter-intuitive situation where an agreed construction becomes hotly disputed. When this happens, it is a reminder that even when we agree on a construction that we think favors us, we should not assume that the opposing party, court, or jury will see it that way.
Firm News | 9 min read | 08.17.23
Firm News | 7 min read | 08.18.22
Publication | 07.07.22
Trade Secret Litigation Is Different: Should Patent Law Concepts Be Imported?
Recognition
- The Best Lawyers: One to Watch
Robert's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.05.23
Claim Construction – We Agree . . . Or Do We? – One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Sometimes we think we have an agreement—only to find out that we do not agree about the meaning of the agreement, and therefore have no agreement at all. This is, of course, a common fact pattern in a contract dispute, but it is also something to look out for in the claim construction process. An agreed claim construction is a far cry from an agreement as to the meaning of that construction as applied to the accused products. We therefore have the counter-intuitive situation where an agreed construction becomes hotly disputed. When this happens, it is a reminder that even when we agree on a construction that we think favors us, we should not assume that the opposing party, court, or jury will see it that way.
Firm News | 9 min read | 08.17.23
Firm News | 7 min read | 08.18.22
Publication | 07.07.22
Trade Secret Litigation Is Different: Should Patent Law Concepts Be Imported?
Robert's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.05.23
Claim Construction – We Agree . . . Or Do We? – One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Sometimes we think we have an agreement—only to find out that we do not agree about the meaning of the agreement, and therefore have no agreement at all. This is, of course, a common fact pattern in a contract dispute, but it is also something to look out for in the claim construction process. An agreed claim construction is a far cry from an agreement as to the meaning of that construction as applied to the accused products. We therefore have the counter-intuitive situation where an agreed construction becomes hotly disputed. When this happens, it is a reminder that even when we agree on a construction that we think favors us, we should not assume that the opposing party, court, or jury will see it that way.
Firm News | 9 min read | 08.17.23
Firm News | 7 min read | 08.18.22
Publication | 07.07.22
Trade Secret Litigation Is Different: Should Patent Law Concepts Be Imported?