Kathryn L. Clune

, Partner Washington, D.C.
kclune@crowell.com
Phone: +1 202.624.2705
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20004-2595

Kathryn Clune is a trial attorney with 25 years of experience in the firm's Intellectual Property Group and Litigation and Trial Department, which was named Litigation Department of the Year by Washington Legal Times for general civil litigation. Kathryn focuses on patent, trademark and trade secrets litigation. Kathryn represents companies from the pre-suit investigation through the Markman, trial and appeal. Kathryn represents clients from a variety of industries, including consumer electronics, mobile applications, medical devices, automotive, railroad and electrical fittings. Kathryn also focuses on litigating "Section 337" cases at the U.S. International Trade Commission. Kathryn's patent litigation experience led her to being featured as one of the "Top 50 under 45" attorneys in IP Law & Business in May 2008.

Kathryn is also a seasoned appellate advocate, having argued numerous cases in federal appellate courts, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Prior to joining Crowell & Moring, Kathryn served in the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps, where she gained extensive trial and appellate experience. Kathryn was also a law clerk for Chief Judge Andrew S. Effron, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Significant Representations

Section 337 Investigations

  • Certain Carburetors(337-TA-1123): Represented MTD Products in a Section 337 Investigation involving hand-held outdoor equipment.  Obtained early termination after Complainant stipulated that client’s currently imported products did not infringe asserted patents.
  • Certain RF Microneedles(337-TA-1112): Represented Lumenis Ltd. & Pollogen Ltd. in a Section 337 Investigation and parallel litigation regarding  radio frequency skin treatment devices. Lead trial attorney at hearing where ALJ tentatively ruled the asserted patent was invalid.  Entered favorable settlement with no exclusion after hearing.
  • Certain Vehicular Smart Watch Systems, Related Software (337-TA----): Represented General Motors Company and OnStar in multi-forum litigation involving a smartwatch-based mobile app for controlling vehicle security and diagnostics functions. Launching an aggressive counter-offensive against the plaintiff and its principal, we forced the plaintiff to drop its complaints in both the district court and the ITC, pre-institution.
  • Certain Sulfentrazone, Sulfentmzone Compositions (337-TA-914): Represented DuPont in hotly contested third-party discovery dispute, limiting testimony to only public information regarding DuPont's products.
  • Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices (337-TA-909): Represented General Motors as a third party presenting public interest testimony at deposition and at the hearing. Parties settled shortly after hearing.
  • Certain Communication Equipment (337-TA-817): Represented respondent Avaya in an investigation related to Power over Ethernet (PoE) features in telephones, switches, and wireless access points. Settled favorably.
  • Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Syst. (337-TA-814): Represented respondent General Motors LLC in an investigation related to automobiles with in-dash GPS navigation systems. Won dismissal of GM and termination of the investigation after six months, with no exclusion.
  • Certain Polyimide Films (337-TA-772): Represented DuPont in hotly contested third-party discovery dispute, successfully quashing a third-party subpoena for deposition and presenting very limited trial testimony.
  • Certain Adjustable-Height Beds (337-TA-734): Represented complainant Invacare in an investigation related to adjustable hospital beds, resulting in Consent Order excluding accused products from entry into the U.S.
  • Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665): Represented respondent LSI, Inc. against complainant Qimonda AG, obtaining Final Determination of non-infringement on five patents and defeating the complainant's claim of domestic industry.
  • Baseband Processor Chips and Chipsets (337-TA-543): Represented Intervenor Sprint Nextel Corp. in an investigation brought by Broadcom against Qualcomm. Lead counsel during the remedy phase, the Presidential Review Period, before Customs, and during the Enforcement Action.
  • Certain Laminated Floor Panels (337-TA-545): Represented 6 of 32 respondents in investigation. Lead counsel at two week hearing, resulting in a finding of Initial Determination of invalidity of broadest patent.

District Court and Military Trial Experience

  • Siemens Mobility, Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies, (D. Del. 2016-present): Won jury trial in favor of Siemens involving Siemens’ patented Positive Train Control Technology. Final Judgment was entered affirming the jury verdict and awarding Siemens $14.2 million in damages.
  • The Regents of the University of California v. Boston Scientific Corp., St. Jude Medical, & Atricure, (N.D. Cal. 2016-2018): Represented The Regents of the University of California against three medical device manufacturers in three patent litigations involving patented methodology and cardiac ablation devices to treat atrial fibrillation. After two years of litigation, the parties all reached an amicable settlement.
  • Spark Networks USA, LLC v. Smooch Labs, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2015): Represented plaintiff (owner of JDate) in a hotly contested patent and trademark infringement action against the mobile application “JSwipe,” resulting in a favorable settlement and acquisition of Smooch Labs, owner of JSwipe.
  • Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.(M.D. Pa. 2013): Won contempt trial on behalf of patentee, proving the competitor's "re-designed products" were within scope of previously issued injunction. The court enjoined the re-designed products for five years, awarded lost profits for all sales and attorney fees.
  • Greenville Communications, LLC v. Verizon Wireless (D.N.J. 2012): Won non-infringement judgment of all Sprint's "call-tone" services after successful Markman decision.
  • Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc, (M.D. Pa. 2009): Won jury verdict of willful patent infringement, breach of contract, and lost profits.
  • Carlson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 201 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C. 2002): Obtained $7.8 million verdict in compensatory damages and $300 million in punitive damages on behalf of 10 former military members and spouses in suit against Iran under Anti-Terrorism Act for damages resulting from the 1985 Hijacking of TWA Flight 847.
  • As a Navy Lieutenant, successfully defended a Marine Aviator in an internationally publicized General Court-Martial. The client was charged with 20 counts of Involuntary Manslaughter arising from an aviation accident with a gondola cable in Northern Italy.

Appellate Experience

  • Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. v. Arlington Industries, Inc., No. 2015-1616, -1617 (Fed. Cir. 2016): Argued and won consolidated appeals affirming the validity of two patents from inter partes reexaminations.
  • Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 2014-1633 (Fed. Cir. 2015): Argued and won affirmance of the district court's claim construction, colorable imitation and infringement findings, and sanctions award of lost profits, attorney fees and expenses.
  • Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 2013-1357 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (opinion, 759 F.3d 1333) Argued and won dismissal of an untimely interlocutory appeal.
  • Greenville Communications, LLC v. Verizon Wireless, No. 2012-1676 (Fed. Cir. 2013): Won affirmance of non-infringement judgment on appeal.
  • Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 2010-1025 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (opinion, 632 F.3d 1246): Argued and won reversal of summary judgment of non-infringement of two patents.
  • Kyocera Wireless et al., v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, No. 2007-1493, (Fed. Cir. 2008) (opinion, 545 F.3d 1340): Won reversal of ITC exclusion order in landmark decision holding the ITC lacked authority to issue limited exclusion orders banning imports of companies not named as respondents in the investigation.
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the Navy & Marine Corps Appellate Court: As a Navy Lieutenant represented several hundred Sailors and Marines in felony appeals before both courts.

Awards & Recognition

  • Best Trial Advocate: New York City Trial Lawyers Association
  • Best Trial Advocate: New York City Trial Lawyers Association
  • Best Paper: NY State Bar Association, Committee on Legal Education & Admission to the Bar
  • Top “50 under 45" attorneys in IP Law & Business in May 2008.
  • Navy & Marine Corps Commendation Medal
  • Navy & Marine Corps Achievement Medal with Gold Star
  • National Defense Service Medal
  • Navy & Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbon with Gold Star
  • NATO Medal

Affiliations

Admitted to practice: District of Columbia, New York, U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, American Intellectual Property Law Association, American Bar Association; NYS Bar Association; Women in IP



Highlights, News & Knowledge

Speeches & Presentations


Publications


Client Alerts & Newsletters


In the News


Firm News & Announcements

Jan.25.2019 LITIGATION NOTE: Crowell & Moring Client Siemens Mobility Inc. Awarded $6.7 Million in IP Suit
Jan.29.2013 Crowell & Moring Releases Report, "Litigation Forecast 2013"
May.27.2008 IP Law & Business Selects Kathryn L. Clune As "Top 50 Under 45" Intellectual Property Lawyer
Mar.01.2007 Crowell & Moring’s Intellectual Property Litigation Team Gains Experienced Trial Lawyer