Insights

Washington, D.C. – July 22, 2026 – Crowell & Moring LLP today shared results from its firmwide integration of Legora as a collaborative AI platform. Crowell has realized significant gains in opportunities to deliver for clients across practices and jurisdictions.  

Washington – May 20, 2026: Crowell & Moring achieved a decisive victory for leading Enterprise AI application software company C3.ai, obtaining a $23.3 million jury verdict following a seven-day trial in Wilmington, Delaware. The jury unanimously found Cummins liable for trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract in a suit brought by C3.ai more than two and a half years ago.

New York – January 27, 2022: Crowell & Moring secured a significant victory - a preliminary injunction against patent infringement through trial - on behalf of Lonza Walkersville, Inc., against Adva Biotechnology Ltd. in a case involving point-of-care cell-therapy technology.

RICO was built for the mob. But Congress gave trade secret victims access to it in 2016, and a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision shows that access is real.

A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case.

In Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed what happens when a patent incorrectly lists the true inventors, and that error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), which requires notice and a hearing for all “parties concerned.” In Fortress, the patent owner sought judicial correction to add an inventor under § 256(b), but that inventor could not be located. Because the missing inventor qualified as a “concerned” party under the statute, the lack of notice and a hearing for that inventor made correction under § 256(b) impossible, and the patents could not be saved from invalidity.