Elissa N. Tenenbaum
Overview
Elissa Tenenbaum represents clients in intellectual property matters, including patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secrets matters, in federal courts, and before the ITC. Her experience includes drafting motions for patent and trademark litigation and patent and trademark office action responses.
Career & Education
- University of Michigan, B.S., cum laude, mechanical engineering, 2018
- Chicago-Kent College of Law, J.D., 2021
- Illinois
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, General Bar
Professional Activities and Memberships
- American Bar Association, Member
- Chicago Women in IP, Member
- Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago, Member
Elissa's Insights
Firm News | 2 min read | 05.20.26
Crowell Secures $23.3 Million Jury Verdict for C3.ai in Major Trade Secret Case
Washington – May 20, 2026: Crowell & Moring achieved a decisive victory for leading Enterprise AI application software company C3.ai, obtaining a $23.3 million jury verdict following a seven-day trial in Wilmington, Delaware. The jury unanimously found Cummins liable for trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract in a suit brought by C3.ai more than two and a half years ago.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.15.26
Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow
Client Alert | 2 min read | 02.03.26
Sedona Model Jury Instructions for DTSA: A Step Forward—But Questions Remain
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
USPTO Director Clarifies Burden on IPR Petitioners Relying on Prior Art Cited During Prosecution
Representative Matters
- Secured a significant victory (a preliminary injunction against patent infringement through trial) on behalf of Lonza Walkersville, Inc. against Israel-based Adva Biotechnology Ltd. in a case involving point-of-care cell-therapy technology.
- Secured jury verdict, judgment and eight figure damages award following weeks’ long trial in Delaware Superior Court for c3.ai, a leading Enterprise AI software and application company, in novel matter alleging its former customer, diesel engine manufacturer Cummins Inc., misappropriated c3.ai's trade secrets and breached the parties’ contract by studying c3.ai's trade secrets and replicating them into Cummins' own application.
Elissa's Insights
Firm News | 2 min read | 05.20.26
Crowell Secures $23.3 Million Jury Verdict for C3.ai in Major Trade Secret Case
Washington – May 20, 2026: Crowell & Moring achieved a decisive victory for leading Enterprise AI application software company C3.ai, obtaining a $23.3 million jury verdict following a seven-day trial in Wilmington, Delaware. The jury unanimously found Cummins liable for trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract in a suit brought by C3.ai more than two and a half years ago.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.15.26
Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow
Client Alert | 2 min read | 02.03.26
Sedona Model Jury Instructions for DTSA: A Step Forward—But Questions Remain
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
USPTO Director Clarifies Burden on IPR Petitioners Relying on Prior Art Cited During Prosecution
Insights
The Defend Trade Secrets Act and How it Differs from State Trade Secret Laws
|08.30.22
Crowell & Moring’s Trade Secrets Trends
Elissa's Insights
Firm News | 2 min read | 05.20.26
Crowell Secures $23.3 Million Jury Verdict for C3.ai in Major Trade Secret Case
Washington – May 20, 2026: Crowell & Moring achieved a decisive victory for leading Enterprise AI application software company C3.ai, obtaining a $23.3 million jury verdict following a seven-day trial in Wilmington, Delaware. The jury unanimously found Cummins liable for trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract in a suit brought by C3.ai more than two and a half years ago.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.15.26
Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow
Client Alert | 2 min read | 02.03.26
Sedona Model Jury Instructions for DTSA: A Step Forward—But Questions Remain
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
USPTO Director Clarifies Burden on IPR Petitioners Relying on Prior Art Cited During Prosecution




