Insights

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.”  

Washington – June 10, 2026: Crowell & Moring has been recommended in eight practice areas in the 19th edition of the Legal 500 United States. In addition, partner Daniel Forman, co-chair of the firm’s Government Contracts Group, has been named to the Legal 500’s “Hall of Fame” for Government Contracts, and partner David (Dj) Wolff, co-chair of the firm’s International Trade Group, has been named a “Leading Partner” in International Trade and National Security.

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.

For 15 years, the question “Should we file an IPR?” was easy. The answer — almost invariably — was “yes.” High institution rates, a famously skeptical U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and minimal downside made inter partes review (IPR) a nearly reflexive tool in the litigator’s arsenal. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Squires’ precedential decision issued May 14, 2026, in Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc. (IPR2026-00097) provides clarity to that calculus.

On March 11, 2026, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Squires issued a memorandum (2026 memo) to all Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) users titled “Additional Discretionary Institution Considerations — U.S. Manufacturing and Small Business Use of AIA Proceedings.”[1] In the 2026 memo, the director adds three new factors in determining whether to institute inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings.[2] The factors focus on domestic manufacturing and the use of these proceedings by small businesses.[3] The memo applies immediately to all pending IPR and PGR proceedings in which the due date for the patent owner’s discretionary brief has not yet elapsed.[4] Patent owners, petitioners with domestic manufacturing ties, and small business petitioners should take note.

Ex parte reexamination is seeing a resurgence in popularity as a cost-effective means to challenge a patent’s validity and should be part of your patent strategy. An ex parte reexamination is a proceeding in which any party — including a patent owner or an anonymous third party — may submit prior art to request that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reassess an issued patent's validity. Once overshadowed by the introduction of inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) following the enactment of the America Invents Act in 2012, ex parte reexamination is now experiencing a significant resurgence as a strategic alternative to both proceedings. This client alert explains what is driving ex parte reexamination’s resurgence and what it means for your patent strategy.

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.

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.