Insights

Washington, D.C.-based counsel and member of the firm’s Intellectual Property Group, Lisa A. Adelson, speaks with Textile Insight about a recent case in which a wearable technology company filed several complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for patent infringement of wearable technology. While Adelson is not involved in the case, she notes that for brands interested in smart apparel, it is important to scan the market for similarities. "Just like in inventions historically, if this is your specialty you sort of know the state of the art. If you think you are close [to another product], you need to get legal advice," said Adelson.

Crowell & Moring's Brussels office is featured in an article highlighting recent partner and senior counsel appointments, as well as an overview of the practice strengths of those individuals and the office as a whole. Brussels partner and office head, Kristof Roox, praises his colleagues, saying, "Jan-Diederik [Lindeman]'s promotion and the addition of Geert [Bogaert] reinforces the strength and breadth of experience that our Brussels office offers and demonstrates our continued investment" in staff appointments. The piece also focuses on the key aspects of the Brussels office, in particular the advising and litigating experience in EU and Belgian Law, intellectual property, pharmaceuticals, and life sciences.

Washington, D.C.-based partners, Terry Rea, of Crowell & Moring's Intellectual Property Group, and Keith J. Harrison, of the firm's Labor & Employment and Litigation groups, weigh in on two important cases in the life sciences arena. Harrison discusses Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.'s challenge of a California appellate decision that a generic-drug manufacturer can be held liable for failing to warn consumers of the side effects listed on the equivalent brand-name drug, which may potentially be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. "This is going to be a case that is going to further define the scope of federal preemption," Harrison said. Additionally, Rea talks about the Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC suit, which argues that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board uses the incorrect standard during America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings, making it difficult for inventors to retain their patents. "Everybody is going to be very, very careful how they handle this [case]," Rea said of the suit, which may upend new IPR standards.

This article heralds an exciting win for the Washington-D.C. based members of Crowell & Moring's Intellectual Property Group. A Virginia federal jury awarded the firm's client, LifeNet, nearly $35 million in damages for LifeCell Corp.'s infringement of a patent improving the preservation of bone and soft-tissue grafts, rejecting LifeCell's invalidity defenses. News of this victory was also highlighted in "Law360's Weekly Verdict: Legal Lions & Lambs," found here.

"The Federal Circuit doesn't have jurisdiction over contempt orders until sanctions are entered; Bosch applies to infringement cases only." Washington D.C. -based, Intellectual Property Group partner Kathryn L. Clune represented Arlington Industries in the case.

The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from Bridgeport Fittings Inc. over a lower court's finding of contempt before sanctions had been awarded for lack of jurisdiction as the lower court had merely interpreted, rather than modified, a 2004 agreement enjoining Bridgeport from producing electrical connectors that allegedly infringed on Arlington Industries Inc. when it entered a contempt order against the company in 2013. The case is Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings Inc. Washington D.C. -based, Intellectual Property Group partner Kathryn L. Clune represented Arlington Industries in the matter.

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 25 ruled that online television streaming service Aereo Inc. violates copyright law by retransmitting over-the-air programming without authorization. John Stewart, IP partner in the firm's Washington, D.C., office and co-head of the firm's member of the firm's global TLD and Domain Name Practice, tells Law360 why the decision in American Broadcasting Companies Inc. v. Aereo Inc. is significant. "America's unique system of free broadcasting provides unparalleled programming service. The Copyright Act carefully balanced the interests of creators, distributors and viewers to sustain this service. The court's decision was plainly driven by the transparency of Aereo's attempts to evade Congress's balance. Even the dissent agrees it 'ought not to be allowed.' The court's opinion reinforces the balance, without impinging on new methods of program delivery developed in cooperation with content owners. The court's analysis of the Transmit Clause and users' prior rights in stored content may affect the remand on Aereo's delayed-transmission services, notwithstanding prior court of appeals decisions."

Chair of Crowell & Moring's Intellectual Property Group, Mark Supko, talks to Law360 about intellectual property legislation to watch in 2014. He notes that the Innovation Act, "would be a pretty fundamental sea change in patent litigation." The House of Representatives passed the Innovation Act in December 2013, which according to Law360, "includes many significant changes to patent law, such as requiring more detail in patent complaints and limiting discovery, but the real fight in 2014 will take place in the Senate."

Brussels-based attorney and member of the firm's Intellectual Property and Trade Secrets groups, Jan-Diederik Lindemans, shares his views on the EU Commission's proposal to stem an increase in theft of trade secrets across Europe with a new proposal to harmonize the definition of the practice and block imports of products arising from such theft. Lindemans notes that a patchwork of different definitions of trade secrets and remedies across the EU's 28 jurisdictions complicates the issue and makes enforcement tricky. "The principle behind this move is right because litigating trade secrets is difficult because it requires an understanding of 28 different legal regimes," stated Lindemans.

Washington, D.C.-based partner and chair of the firm's Intellectual Property Group, Mark Supko tells Law360 in their "Practice Leader Q&A" series about areas of the intellectual property industry that he thinks need to be reformed, and about a good life lesson learned when he was just beginning his legal career.