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 – July 30, 2026: Managing Intellectual Property has recognized nine Crowell & Moring attorneys and five practice areas in its 2026 IP Stars rankings for the United States, underscoring the depth, breadth, and technical strength of the firm’s global Intellectual Property practice, which includes more than 100 attorneys, patent agents and technical advisors. The guide “covers a variety of IP practice areas and more than 80 jurisdictions, making it the most comprehensive and widely respected IP practitioner guide in the legal profession.”  

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.

Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

On March 25, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a case with significant implications for the application of the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). This case involved the importation of two transcatheter heart valve systems by Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., an India-based medical device company, to San Francisco for a medical conference. According to Meril, these heart valve systems, part of Meril’s Myval System designed to treat heart disease, were never displayed or offered for sale at the conference but were instead stored in a bag in a hotel closet and later in a storage room. The Court’s decision to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Meril brings to light the nuances of applying the safe harbor provision in patent infringement cases.