Photograph of Brad Lane

Education

  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, B.S. General Engineering (1985) with highest honors
  • University of Michigan Law School, J.D. (1988)

Admissions

  • Illinois
  • Michigan
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Trial Bar
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Languages

  • German

Brad Lane

Partner
Chicago
blane@crowell.com
Phone: +1 312.321.4252
455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive
Suite 3600
Chicago, IL 60611

Brad Lane is a seasoned litigator who works with clients to understand and identify their big-picture objectives and think forward to the best way to achieve them. Brad is hands-on at every stage of the litigation process, from pleadings, through discovery and motion practice, to trial and appeal. Brad also understands that litigation makes business sense in some cases, but may not be the answer to every business challenge, and therefore consults with his clients on alternatives available in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, from Patent Trial and Appeal Board trials to ex parte reexaminations, as well as alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation and/or arbitration.

In all engagements, Brad works closely with innovators, business strategists and other client personnel to understand key products, markets and business strategies so as to translate technical information into persuasive arguments.

Brad has handled a broad range of intellectual property cases, with an emphasis on patent and trade secret cases, and related licensing matters. He is experienced in appellate advocacy before the Federal Circuit. In addition to his work in U.S. courts, Brad partners regularly with the firm’s foreign associates to help protect intellectual property assets worldwide. Because he has worked with foreign litigation and prosecution counsel, Brad has the experience to ensure clients have access to the resources they need to accomplish their goals in intellectual property matters.

Brad has been ranked as an “Illinois Super Lawyer” for IP litigation since 2006 and has been honored as an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property magazine since 2013. Prior to joining Crowell & Moring, he was a shareholder at Brinks Gilson & Lione.

EXPERIENCE OVERVIEW

  • Brad successfully argued on appeal, on behalf of TE Connectivity, that the district court had properly dismissed a complaint alleging trade secret misappropriation for lack of personal jurisdiction. The dismissal of the trade secrets case by the district court was affirmed in all respects.
  • Brad represented Cook Incorporated in a patent infringement action it filed to protect two patents concerning endovascular stent grafts and their delivery systems for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. The case settled favorably following resolution of summary judgment motions in Cook’s favor.
  • When Cook was sued for alleged infringement based on four endovascular stent grafts patents, Brad helped obtain a summary judgment in the company’s favor and authored the successful appeal brief that affirmed the summary judgment.
  • Brad defended Shanghai Xing Te Hao against allegations of patent infringement as to certain power tools. Because of a motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the client, the matter was limited to jurisdictional discovery and thereafter settled on terms favorable to Shanghai Xing Te Hao.
  • In an infringement case against Visteon Corporation, Brad obtained a dismissal with prejudice of all infringement allegations relating to various Visteon universal joint products.
  • When Cook’s principal competitor launched a new product line based on an implantable collagen matrix product originating from porcine small intestine submucosa, Brad represented Cook in seeking damages and injunctive relief. Within five months, the competitor sought bankruptcy protection. 


Recognition

  • American Bar Foundation, Fellow
  • The Best Lawyers in America, Litigation—Intellectual Property, 2016–2021
  • Illinois Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property Litigation, 2006–2021
  • IP Star, Managing Intellectual Property magazine, 2013–2021
  • Leading Intellectual Property Lawyer, Leading Lawyers Network, Law Bulletin Publishing Company, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009–2021
  • Managing Editor, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 1988
  • James Scholar, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1985


Affiliations

  • Public Interest Law Initiative
    Board of Directors
  • American Bar Association, 1989–Present
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association, 1989-Present
  • Association Internationale Pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle
  • Chicago Bar Association, 1989–Present
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association, 1992–Present
  • Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago, 2001–Present
  • International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association
  • Public Interest Law Initiative (PILI)
    President, 2016–2018

Admissions

Admitted to practice: Illinois, Michigan, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), U.S. District Court for the Northern District Illinois Trial Bar, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit



Representative Engagements

  • Ultimate Home Protector Pans, Inc. v. Rev-A-Shelf Company, LLC, 2021 (Western District of Kentucky, Louisville). Obtained a default judgment of non-infringement on behalf of Rev-A-Shelf in this patent infringement case. Reported decision at: 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79789.
  • J.S.T. Corporation v. TE Connectivity, 2020 (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Chicago, Illinois). Successfully argued on behalf of TE Connectivity for affirmance of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that dismissed a complaint alleging trade secret misappropriation for lack of personal jurisdiction. Reported decision at: 965 F.3d 571.
  • Lifeport Sciences LLC v. Cook Incorporated, 2016 (District of Delaware, Wilmington). Represented Cook in this patent infringement action filed by Lifeport Sciences asserting four patents against Cook involving endovascular grafts and their delivery systems, and vena cava blood filters and their delivery systems. Following substantial discovery and favorable claim construction rulings, the case was dismissed with prejudice.
  • Cook Incorporated v Endologix, Inc., 2009–2012 (Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis). Represented Cook in this patent infringement action filed by Cook based on two patents concerning endovascular stent grafts and their delivery systems for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. The case settled favorably following resolution of summary judgment motions that were in favor of the client.
  • Edwards Lifesciences LLC, and EndoGAD Research Pty Ltd. v. Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic AVE, Inc., Cook Incorporated, and W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., 2003–2009 (Northern District of California, San Francisco; Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Represented Cook in this patent infringement action filed by Edwards Lifesciences based on four patents concerning endovascular stent grafts for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracic aortic aneurysms. Case was resolved favorably to the client on summary judgment of noninfringement, and Brad authored the successful appeal brief that affirmed the summary judgment in all respects. Reported decision at: 582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 
  • Black & Decker, Inc. v. Shanghai Xing Te Hao Industrial Co., et al., 2003 (Northern District of Illinois, Chicago). Represented Shanghai Xing Te Hao in defending against allegations of patent infringement as to certain power tools. Because of a motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the client, the matter was limited to jurisdictional discovery and thereafter settled on terms favorable to the client. Reported decision at: 66 BNA Pat., Trademark & Copyright J. 237 (6/20/03). 
  • American Axle & Mfg. v. Visteon Corporation, 2002 (Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit). Represented Visteon based on alleged patent infringement relating to various Visteon universal joint products. This matter was dismissed with prejudice on all counts in favor of our client, Visteon. 
  • Cook Biotech Inc. v. Organogenesis Inc., 2002 (Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis). Represented Cook Biotech against its principal competitor on a new product line based on an implantable collagen matrix product originating from porcine small intestine submucosa. In the case, Cook Biotech sought damages and an injunction. Within five months of the litigation, Organogenesis sought bankruptcy protection. 
  • Sidel v. Uniloy Milacron Inc., 2001 (Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta). Defended Uniloy Milacron in a preliminary injunction motion based on alleged patent infringement. Following a hearing and extensive briefing, the Court agreed with the position advocated on behalf of Uniloy Milacron that a preliminary injunction was unwarranted and that Uniloy Milacron would likely succeed in defending against the allegations. The lawsuit settled thereafter on terms favorable to our client, Uniloy Milacron. Reported decision at: 61 USPQ2d 1480 (N.D. Ga. 2001).
  • Panduit Corp. v. Randall D. Gritters and Storm Products Company, 2000 (Illinois State Circuit Court, Chicago). Represented Panduit in a case filed against one of Panduit’s former employees, and his new employer Storm Products. In the case, Panduit sought to enforce an employment agreement that included noncompetition and confidentiality obligations executed by the former employee. The case was filed in chancery court, and included claims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation and tortious interference with contractual relations. Brad was responsible for filing the motion for temporary restraining order that resulted in an agreed consent judgment order that included certain injunctive provisions favorable to our client, Panduit. 
  • AMP Incorporated and The Whitaker Corporation v. Teradyne, Inc., 1998–2000 (Middle District of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg). Represented AMP and Whitaker in this action filed against Teradyne. AMP and Whitaker sued Teradyne for trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and patent infringement. The patents at issue were U.S. Patent No. 4,846,727 for a reference conductor for improving signal integrity in electrical connectors, and U.S. Patent No. 5,342,211 for a shielded back plane connector. The case also involved counterclaims filed by Teradyne for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,860,816 for an electrical connector assembled from wafers, as well as for alleged breach of contract, and interference with prospective contractual relations. Brad headed up the liability part of the case, and also assisted with the damages case. After discovery was completed, and dispositive motions filed, the case settled on terms favorable to AMP and The Whitaker Corporation. A subsequent interference provoked by Teradyne resulted in an opinion by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on preliminary motions that concluded the interference in favor of the client. 
  • Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Manufacturing Michigan and Denso Corporation, 1992–1999 (Northern District of Illinois, Chicago; Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Represented Tec Air in a patent infringement case against Denso Corp. and Denso Mfg. Michigan. He was involved in all aspects of the case, including liability and damages. This was a hard fought lawsuit that spanned over seven years. The case involved two patents owned by Tec Air relating to fan assemblies used with radiators and condensers in automobiles. The case was tried in three phases, before two separate juries (involving approximately seven weeks of trial time), and resulted in three jury verdicts—infringement, validity and damages—all in favor of our client Tec Air. In the final phase, the jury returned a damages verdict for $25.2 million in favor of Tec Air; this award was increased to more than $40 million with prejudgment interest. The jury verdict was identified in the National Law Journal as one of the three largest patent infringement verdicts of 1997. Denso appealed, and the judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in all respects. Brad was responsible, together with other members of the Tec Air team, for writing the appellate briefs filed by Tec Air. Reported decisions include: 33 U.S.P.Q.2d 1451 (N.D. Ill. 1994); 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11140 (N.D. Ill. 1995); 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18891 (N.D. Ill. 1995); 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14292 (N.D. Ill. 1996); 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1081 (N.D. Ill. 1997); 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1944 (N.D. Ill. 1998); and, 192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999).


Publications

  • "Seventh Circuit Affirms Trade Secret Protection of Patented Spinal Implant Device," Crowell & Moring’s Trade Secrets Trends (October 5, 2021). Authors: Dalton Hughes and Brad Lane.
  • ""A Proposal to View Patent Claim Nonobviousness from the Policy Perspective of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)," Author, 20 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 1157 ," 20 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (1987). Author: Brad Lane


Client Alerts & Newsletters



Media Mentions



Firm News & Announcements

Aug.19.2021

The Best Lawyers in America 2022 Recognizes 53 Crowell & Moring Attorneys, One Selected as Lawyer of the Year