Insights

London – October 2, 2026: Crowell & Moring has earned recognition across four practice areas in the Legal 500 United Kingdom 2027 rankings and has been named a Firm to Watch for Data Protection, Privacy and Cybersecurity and PATMA: Patent attorneys.

San Francisco – October 1, 2026: The Daily Journal has named Crowell & Moring partner Molly Jones to its Top 100 Lawyers and Distinguished Counsel 2026 list, which recognizes the most influential lawyers in California.

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. 

We are pleased to announce that Crowell & Moring and Crowell GovCon Strategies will be exhibiting at Farnborough International Airshow (FIA 2026), one of the world's premier aerospace, defence and space events. FIA is where the aerospace, defence and space industry comes together. It is where deals are made, partnerships are formed, and the future direction of the sector takes shape. For businesses operating in this environment, navigating complex regulation, competing for government contracts, protecting critical intellectual property and managing international trade across multiple jurisdictions demands the right legal and strategic counsel.

On June 4, 2026, Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI-5) introduced a bill that would limit the ability of people and entities seen as threats to U.S. national security to obtain and enforce patents. If enacted, the Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act of 2026 (H.R. 9142) would leverage use of patent law as a national security tool, with consequences for companies operating in technology-intensive sectors, including drones, telecommunications, semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and advanced manufacturing. The proposed legislation, currently under review by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, is particularly focused on persons and entities with connections to the People’s Republic of China.

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.

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.