Insights

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.

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.

Traditionally, a response to a Final Office Action (“FOA”) issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) often involves filing a Request for Continued Examination (“RCE”) in order for the Examiner to consider further claim amendments.  In 2013, the USPTO launched the After Final Consideration Pilot program 2.0 (“AFCP 2.0”) as an alternative.  The AFCP 2.0 program allows patent applicants to request consideration of an amendment after a FOA without additional fees and grants examiners extra time to review the after-final amendment.  This provides applicants the chance to file after-final amendments without incurring the significant fees associated with an RCE.  The AFCP 2.0 program also provides an opportunity for applicants to have an interview with the Examiner and this increased communication often led to efficient resolution of prosecution.