Insights

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.

Irvine, Calif. – January 27, 2026: John Paik, an intellectual property attorney with more than two decades of experience at leading law firms and technology companies, has joined Crowell & Moring as a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Department in Orange County.

London – October 14, 2025: Crowell & Moring U.K. LLP has been recommended in five practice areas in the Legal 500 United Kingdom 2026.

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.

At the European Patent Office (EPO), a recent referral of case T 873/24 from the Technical Board to the Enlarged Board of Appeal may clarify whether last summer’s decision in case G 1/24 on claim interpretation may be extended to the analysis of Added Subject-Matter. Already G 1/24 is impacting the assessment of patentability at the EPO, but should this referral be allowed, G 1/24’s effect on the assessment of added matter could result in a real shake up of the EPO’s notoriously strict assessment of support. Nonetheless, a review of how we got here highlights the value of late arguments during the EPO appeal process.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently decided in Bd. of Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Gen Digital Inc., No. 2024-1243 (Fed. Cir. 2026) that the district court erred in its denial of judgment as a matter of law as to damages resulting from foreign sales of downloadable software. At Columbia University's request, the jury had been instructed that “Columbia [was] entitled to damages based on sales to customers located outside of the United States if . . . the infringing product sold to those customers was made in or distributed from the United States, even if the infringing product [was] delivered to and used by the customer outside the United States.” The court concluded as a matter of law that the software sold to Gen Digital‘s (Norton) foreign customers was made outside the United States, and therefore the $94 million in foreign sales damages could not stand.

The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program is a collaborative initiative between the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and several foreign patent offices, created to speed up the examination process. Through the PPH, a patent application initially filed with a participating patent office (Office of Earlier Examination, or OEE) can be expedited in another participating intellectual property office, provided it meets specific requirements. According to the USPTO, PPH leverages fast-track examination procedures already in place among participating patent offices to allow applicants to reach final disposition of a patent application more quickly and efficiently than standard examination processing.  

A proposed overhaul of U.S. patent eligibility law could shape the patent litigation landscape in 2024, with some parties rushing to court before Congress enacts reform and others holding back on filing suit in the hope that the changes will strengthen their legal case, says Crowell & Moring partner Gang Chen.

Since the November 2022 release of ChatGPT, generative AI has been a regulatory accelerator for governance of AI writ large. Individuals, organizations, industries, and governments across the world have grappled with the implications of AI, including how it is and could be regulated using existing and new legal frameworks. For example, since our December 2023 update: