Insights

Irvine, Calif. – January 27, 2026: John Paik, an intellectual property attorney with more than two decades of experience at leading law firms and technology companies, has joined Crowell & Moring as a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Department in Orange County.

Crocs, Inc. recently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 26-421), asking the Court to review and resolve the question: “Whether an agency disposition is final as to some issues, thus triggering deadlines for judicial review, while other issues decided in the same disposition remain subject to further executive or administrative review.”

For 15 years, the question “Should we file an IPR?” was easy. The answer — almost invariably — was “yes.” High institution rates, a famously skeptical U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and minimal downside made inter partes review (IPR) a nearly reflexive tool in the litigator’s arsenal. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Squires’ precedential decision issued May 14, 2026, in Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc. (IPR2026-00097) provides clarity to that calculus.

Design patents offer protection for the ornamental appearance of a product, focusing on aspects like its shape and surface decoration, as opposed to the functional aspects protected by utility patents. The scope of a design patent is defined by the drawings and any descriptive language within the patent itself. Recent decisions by the Federal Circuit emphasize the need for clarity in the prosecution history of a design patent in order to preserve desired scope to preserve intentional narrowing (and to avoid unintentional sacrifice of desired claim scope).