Insights

Washington – June 4, 2026: Crowell & Moring earned 92 individual rankings for 81 attorneys, as well as 48 national and statewide practice area rankings, in the Chambers USA 2026 guide. The Chambers guide ranks the country’s top law firms and lawyers through in-depth research, client interviews, and feedback from attorneys at peer firms. 

Washington – June 6, 2024: Crowell & Moring earned 78 rankings for 67 lawyers, as well as 41 national and statewide practice area rankings, in the Chambers USA 2024 guide. The rankings are driven by independent interviews of clients and lawyers at peer firms.

Brussels – April 13, 2022:  The Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa (EMEA) 2022 edition has recognized 11 practice areas and seven lawyers in Crowell & Moring’s Brussels office. The seven individual lawyers received 12 total rankings across all practice areas. The publication seeks to “highlight the practice area teams who are providing the most cutting edge and innovative advice to corporate counsel.”

If a court finds that a patent applicant intentionally misrepresented or withheld material information from the USPTO with the intent to deceive, the consequences are severe, leading to unenforceability of the entire patent (and likely any later patents claiming priority to the unenforceable patent).

The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) is having a big year. While the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmance of the CIT tariff ruling may be at the top of the headlines, the CIT is also making its mark on Hatch-Waxman pharmaceutical litigation. In late April 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (DNJ) reassigned numerous Hatch-Waxman patent infringement cases involving 10 different drugs to Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves of the CIT, sitting by designation in the District of New Jersey. The cases currently assigned to Judge Choe-Groves relate to several different drug products, including LYNPARZA® (olaparib), RADICAVA ORS® (edaravone), NEXLETOL®/NEXLIZET® (bempedoic acid), ZEJULA® (niraparib), QULIPTA® (atogepant), UBRELVY® (ubrogepant), CREXONT® (carbidopa and levodopa), EVRYSDI® (risdiplam), SUFLAVE® (polyethylene glycol 3350, sodium sulfate, potassium chloride, magnesium sulfate, and sodium chloride for oral solution), and CAPLYTA® (lumateperone).

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.