Insights

Washington – August 20, 2026: The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized 57 of the firm's attorneys in its 2027 edition, a testament to the firm's deep bench of legal talent across practices and offices nationwide. In addition, 29 attorneys have been named to the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® list, recognizing outstanding attorneys earlier in their careers. 

Chicago – June 2, 2026: Intellectual Asset Management recognized Crowell & Moring in its IAM Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners guide, awarding a gold band ranking for patent litigation and transactions in Belgium, a silver band ranking for patent litigation and recommended for patent prosecution in Illinois, and a bronze band ranking for patent prosecution in the United Kingdom: England and Wales. The firm was also recommended nationally in the United States for trade secrets litigation.

San Francisco – March 19, 2026: Crowell & Moring achieved a decisive victory for Kawasaki Heavy Industries in the Northern District of California, obtaining a $48 million jury verdict after a two-week trial. The jury unanimously found that Rorze Corporation and its U.S. subsidiary, Rorze Automation, Inc., willfully infringed Kawasaki’s U.S. Patent No. RE45,772.

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Luv n’ Care v. Laurain provides a cautionary tale for patentees. Disclosing prior art to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not enough to insulate against a finding of inequitable conduct, particularly where a patentee mischaracterizes that prior art and the PTO’s patentability determination may have differed had the patentee accurately described the prior art. Misconduct by the patentee during litigation can also lead to a finding of unclean hands that bars the patentee from relief for alleged infringement against the opposing party in that litigation.

Drug development in the United States is expensive and time-consuming, which makes pharmaceutical patents an important asset for pharmaceutical companies to protect their investment in bringing new drugs to market.  Equally important to the public and other drug companies is that any pharmaceutical patents that are issued by the Patent Office cover only technology that is new and not obvious. Clinical trials frequently lie at the intersection of these two competing interests. Pharmaceutical companies must engage in clinical trials to test their new products and the existence of those clinical trials may become public. But can the announcement of a trial itself render the resulting invention obvious and unpatentable?