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
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.15.26
Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow
In Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed what happens when a patent incorrectly lists the true inventors, and that error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), which requires notice and a hearing for all “parties concerned.” In Fortress, the patent owner sought judicial correction to add an inventor under § 256(b), but that inventor could not be located. Because the missing inventor qualified as a “concerned” party under the statute, the lack of notice and a hearing for that inventor made correction under § 256(b) impossible, and the patents could not be saved from invalidity.
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
Blog Post | 08.30.22
The Defend Trade Secrets Act and How it Differs from State Trade Secret Laws
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.
Elissa's Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.15.26
Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow
In Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed what happens when a patent incorrectly lists the true inventors, and that error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), which requires notice and a hearing for all “parties concerned.” In Fortress, the patent owner sought judicial correction to add an inventor under § 256(b), but that inventor could not be located. Because the missing inventor qualified as a “concerned” party under the statute, the lack of notice and a hearing for that inventor made correction under § 256(b) impossible, and the patents could not be saved from invalidity.
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
Blog Post | 08.30.22
The Defend Trade Secrets Act and How it Differs from State Trade Secret Laws
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
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.15.26
Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow
In Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed what happens when a patent incorrectly lists the true inventors, and that error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), which requires notice and a hearing for all “parties concerned.” In Fortress, the patent owner sought judicial correction to add an inventor under § 256(b), but that inventor could not be located. Because the missing inventor qualified as a “concerned” party under the statute, the lack of notice and a hearing for that inventor made correction under § 256(b) impossible, and the patents could not be saved from invalidity.
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
Blog Post | 08.30.22
The Defend Trade Secrets Act and How it Differs from State Trade Secret Laws
