Mark Supko

Partner
Washington, D.C.
msupko@crowell.com
Phone: +1 202.624.2734
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20004-2595

Mark Supko is a partner in the firm's Intellectual Property and Litigation groups. He is a trial lawyer whose practice has been dedicated to IP litigation for more than 25 years, with a heavy emphasis on patent litigation in the computer, electrical, and mechanical arts, serving corporate clients in diverse industries, including automotive, aerospace, consumer electronics, and telecommunications. Prior to joining the firm, Mark was a partner in a leading international IP boutique; and before pursuing a career in the law, he was a systems engineer for the world's largest automaker. Mark is recognized by Chambers USA as a leading lawyer in the D.C. Intellectual Property and D.C. Intellectual Property: Litigation categories.

Mark is experienced in all aspects of patent litigation, from pre-suit investigations through trial and appeal. He has litigated patent infringement cases in federal district courts across the country, has argued appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has handled Section 337 cases before the U.S. International Trade Commission, and has led teams in inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Mark has successfully litigated cases involving a wide variety of technologies, including automobile navigation systems, automotive braking systems, wireless communications, internet infrastructure and applications, consumer electronics, digital imaging, oil refining, financial services, and medical devices. These cases have come in all shapes and sizes, ranging from defending some of the largest companies in the world from patents being asserted against entire industry segments, to representation of small companies asserting their crown jewel patents against isolated infringers.

Mark represents clients in enforcing their patent rights against infringers and in defending against the enforcement efforts of others, with considerable experience defending cases brought by non-practicing entities (NPEs). He also has experience litigating other types of intellectual property matters, including trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and trade secret misappropriation. Mark recently was lead trial counsel for the plaintiff in a case involving computer-based train control technology that resulted in a jury verdict of willful infringement and a multimillion damages award.

In addition to litigation, Mark's practice involves counseling clients on matters relating to the acquisition, protection, and enforcement of intellectual property rights. He has significant experience in post-grant validity challenges before the USPTO, including IPRs and ex parte reexaminations, and preparation of legal opinions relating to patent validity, enforceability, and infringement. He also has been extensively involved in licensing of intellectual property, including establishment of licensing programs through both adversarial and non-adversarial means.

Mark is also active in the firm's pro bono program, focusing his community service efforts on defensive asylum cases before the U.S. Immigration Court. He has successfully represented numerous victims of persecution at the hands of foreign governments in securing political asylum in the United States.

Representative Cases

  • Represented Siemens in a wide-ranging, multi-forum intellectual property dispute involving Positive Train Control technology, including a jury trial win resulting in a finding of willful infringement and a $15 million damages award, and including defense of 15 inter partes review (IPR) petitions before the USPTO. Siemens Industry Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies, No. 1:16-cv-284 (D. Del.).
  • Defending Honeywell in a patent infringement suit filed by a non-practicing entity relating to mobile computers implementing various wireless communications standards. Sisval International v. Honeywell, No. 1:19-cv-1143 (D. Del.).
  • Defended BAE Systems in a trade secrets misappropriation action relating to the development of a next-generation light armored vehicle for the U.S. Army, successfully defeating claims for injunctive relief that could have threatened a $750 million development contract. Raytheon v BAE Systems, No. 1:19-cv-251 (E.D. Va.).
  • Representing Cybergenetics in a patent infringement suit against its primary competitor involving computer-based probabilistic genotyping systems used for forensic analysis of evidence samples containing DNA mixtures. Cybergenetics v. Institute of Environmental Science and Research, No. 5:19-cv-1197 (N.D. Ohio).
  • Defended Avaya in a patent infringement suit brought by a non-practicing entity against suppliers of network communication equipment compliant with the IEEE’s Power Over Ethernet standard. Network-1 Technologies v. Avaya et al., No. 6:11-cv-492 (E.D. Tex.).
  • Defended General Motors and OnStar in a multi-forum patent infringement dispute involving a smartwatch-based mobile app for controlling vehicle security and diagnostics functions, applying an aggressive counter-offensive against the plaintiff and its principal that forced the plaintiff to drop its complaints in both the district court and the ITC. Intellectual Capital Consulting v. General Motors and OnStar, No. 2:15-cv-917 (E.D. Tex.).
  • Represented amicus General Motors in a Federal Circuit appeal of a preliminary injunction against a supplier that threatened the supply of lithium ion batteries used in General Motors' electric vehicles, resulting in reversal of the injunction. Celgard v. LG Chem, No. 2014-1675 (Fed. Cir.).
  • Represented plaintiffs Bendix and Knorr-Bremse in a patent infringement suit against a main competitor involving air disk brakes for commercial vehicles, securing a jury verdict of willful infringement, a permanent injunction, compensatory and enhanced damages, and a multimillion dollar attorneys' fee award. Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems v. Haldex Brake Products, No. 1:09-CV-176 (N.D. Ohio).
  • Represented respondent General Motors in a Section 337 investigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission seeking to exclude importation of vehicles equipped with in-dash navigation systems, successfully pressuring the Complainant to terminate the investigation at the close of fact discovery. Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-814 (U.S.I.T.C.).


Affiliations

Admitted to practice: District of Columbia; New York; U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Federal, Second, and Fourth Circuits; U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, District of Columbia, Eastern District of Michigan, and Eastern District of Texas; and U.S. Court of Federal Claims

Professional Organizations

  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • American Bar Association
  • The Sedona Conference


Representative Engagements

Autonomous/Connected Vehicles

  • Represented Siemens in a wide-ranging, multi-forum intellectual property dispute involving Positive Train Control technology, including a jury trial win resulting in a finding of willful infringement and a $15 million damages award, and including defense of 15 inter partes review (IPR) petitions before the USPTO. Siemens Industry Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies, No. 1:16-cv-284 (D. Del.).
  • Defended General Motors and OnStar in a multi-forum patent infringement dispute involving a smartwatch-based mobile app for controlling vehicle security and diagnostics functions, applying an aggressive counter-offensive against the plaintiff and its principal that forced the plaintiff to drop its complaints in both the district court and the ITC. Intellectual Capital Consulting v. General Motors and OnStar, No. 2:15-cv-917 (E.D. Tex.).
  • Defended OnStar in a patent infringement action involving vehicle-based Internet communications, forcing a voluntary dismissal of the complaint with prejudice after securing a transfer to OnStar's home forum. Automotive Technologies Int'l v. OnStar, No. 4:11-CV-15604 (E.D. Mich.).
  • Defended BMW and Mercedes in a patent infringement action involving the transmission of advertisements to vehicles using GPS and Internet technologies, forcing a favorable settlement immediately after a Markman hearing. Fernandez Innovative Technologies v. BMW and Mercedes, No. 07-CV-1397 (N.D. Ill.).
  • Defended OnStar in a patent infringement action involving remote control of vehicle operational systems, securing a favorable settlement after successfully compelling the deposition of the plaintiff's principal. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems v. OnStar, No. 8:10-CV-01909 (C.D. Cal.).

Automotive/Transportation

  • Representing automotive parts supplier BOS in a patent infringement action involving retractable rear window shades with injection-molded guide rails. BOS GmbH v. Macauto, No. 4:17-cv-10461 (E.D. Mich.).
  • Defended General Motors in a patent infringement action involving vehicle-based camera technology brought against nearly every major competitor in the U.S. automotive market, securing a dismissal with prejudice after convincing the court that the asserted patent could not reasonably be construed to cover the accused products. Ottah v. General Motors, No. 1:15-cv-2465 (S.D.N.Y.).
  • Represented defendant General Motors in a patent infringement action involving personalized marketing communications brought by a non-practicing entity against a wide swath of U.S. industries, forcing the plaintiff to withdraw its complaint shortly before trial. Phoenix Licensing v. General Motors, No. 2:13-cv-1093 (E.D. Tex.).
  • Represented Belgian patent owner and its U.S. subsidiary in patent infringement action against supplier of two-tone vehicle instrument panels and door panels manufactured using patented spray molding process. Recticel Automobilesysteme v. Automotive Components Holdings, No. 2:10-CV-14097 (E.D. Mich.).
  • Represented Bendix and Knorr-Bremse in a patent infringement suit against a main competitor involving air disk brakes for commercial vehicles, securing a jury verdict of willful infringement, a permanent injunction, compensatory and enhanced damages, and a multi million dollar attorneys' fee award. Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems v. Haldex Brake Products, No. 1:09-CV-176 (N.D. Ohio).
  • Represented respondent General Motors in a Section 337 investigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission seeking to exclude importation of vehicles equipped with in-dash navigation systems, successfully pressuring the Complainant to terminate the investigation at the close of fact discovery. Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-814 (U.S.I.T.C.).
  • Represented third-party General Motors in a patent infringement action brought against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims involving a technology for heat treatment of metal vehicle components, successfully defeating the plaintiff's effort to take intrusive third-party discovery. Hitkansut v. United States, No. 1:12-CV-303 (Fed. Cl.).

Computer/Electrical

  • Representing Cybergenetics in a patent infringement suit against its primary competitor involving computer-based probabilistic genotyping systems used for forensic analysis of evidence samples containing DNA mixtures.  Cybergenetics v. Institute of Environmental Science and Research, No. 5:19-cv-1197 (N.D. Ohio).
  • Represented patentee in declaratory judgment action involving patents, copyrights, and trademarks covering graphical modeling system used to develop insurance claim estimates, securing favorable settlement that resolved risk of confusion in market. Symbility v. Xactware, No. 2:05-CV-73068 (E.D. Mich.).
  • Defended Kodak in two related patent infringement actions involving a process for virtual proofing of digital print jobs, securing a favorable settlement after claim construction. Colorquick v. Kodak, Nos. 6:08-CV-165, 6:06-CV-390 (E.D. Tex.).
  • Represented Kodak in patent infringement action brought by non-practicing entity on patents involving process for enhancing scanned digital images, securing a favorable settlement during fact discovery. GTX v. Kodak, No. 6:06-CV-244 (E.D. Tex.).
  • Represented manufacturer of optical fiber switches in defense of patent infringement suit, forcing a favorable settlement after counterclaiming for infringement of our clients' own earlier patents covering the technology at issue. Apcon v. Curtiss-Wright and Systran, No. 07-CV-402 (C.D. Cal.).
  • Defended Kodak in a patent infringement action brought by a non-practicing entity on patents involving network interface cards for computer peripheral devices, resulting in a favorable settlement. Whetstone Electronics v. Kodak, No. 6:08-CV-317 (E.D. Tex.).
  • Defended BAE Systems in a trade secrets misappropriation action relating to the development of a next-generation light armored vehicle for the U.S. Army, successfully defeating claims for injunctive relief that could have threatened a $750 million development contract.  Raytheon v BAE Systems, No. 1:19-cv-251 (E.D. Va.)  

Telecommunications

  • Defended Avaya in a patent infringement suit brought by a non-practicing entity against suppliers of network communication equipment compliant with the IEEE’s Power Over Ethernet standard. Network-1 Technologies v. Avaya et al., No. 6:11-cv-492 (E.D. Tex.).
  • Defended KVH in a patent infringement action involving maritime-based satellite communications equipment, securing a favorable settlement. Advanced Media Networks v. KVH, No. 1:15-cv-84 (D.R.I.).
  • Defended Vizada in a patent infringement action involving satellite communication systems, securing a favorable settlement providing the client with freedom to operate in the market for the accused technology. Advanced Media Networks v. Vizada, No. 1:10-CV-194 (S.D.N.Y.).
  • Defended Nortel Networks in a patent infringement action involving distributed telecommunications networks using spread spectrum modulation, securing a favorable settlement for a small fraction of the plaintiff's original demand. Linex v. Nortel, No. 05-CV-80300 (S.D. Fla.).

Consumer Products

  • Defended Yamaha in a patent infringement action involving communication protocols for wireless networking of multimedia devices, forcing a favorable settlement by pursuing an aggressive defense strategy focused on invalidation of the asserted patents through an early "Alice motion." Open Network Solutions v. Yamaha, No. 1:14-cv-702 (D. Del.).
  • Defended Yamaha in a patent infringement action brought by a non-practicing entity against suppliers of audio-visual equipment compliant with the “Miracast” standard for wireless video display. Sockeye Licensing TX v. Yamaha, No. 2:15-cv-1615 (E.D. Tex.).
  • Represented complainant Invacare in a Section 337 investigation involving importation of patented adjustable hospital beds, succeeding in obtaining a consent order excluding the accused products from entry into the United States. Adjustable-Height Beds and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-734 (U.S.I.T.C.).
  • Represented Yamaha in a patent infringement action involving Blu-Ray Disc Players with wireless control and display capabilities. Motile Optics v. Yamaha, No. 6:15-cv-1069 (E.D. Tex.). 

Defense/Government Contracts

  • Defended BAE Systems in a trade secrets misappropriation action relating to the development of a next-generation light armored vehicle for the U.S. Army, successfully defeating claims for injunctive relief that could have threatened a $750 million development contract.  Raytheon v BAE Systems, No. 1:19-cv-251 (E.D. Va.).
  • Represented third-party defendant BAE Systems in a patent infringement action filed against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498 involving laser-based missile countermeasure systems for the U.S. Army, resulting in a dismissal with prejudice after we invalidated the asserted patent through an inter partes review at the USPTO. Cheetah Omni v. United States, No. 1:11-CV-255 (Fed. Cl.).
  • Represented several BAE Systems entities in a patent infringement action involving fiber optic lasers used in missile countermeasure systems, securing a voluntary dismissal before answering the complaint due to a lack of any actionable commercial activity. Cheetah Omni v. BAE Systems, No. 6:10-CV-602 (E.D. Tex.).

Chemical/Chemical Engineering

  • Represented plaintiff Curtiss-Wright Flow Control in a patent infringement action against a competitor involving industrial valves used to dehead coke drums during oil refining operations, securing grant of a preliminary injunction leading to a settlement that kept the competitor's accused valve out of the market. Curtiss-Wright Flow Control v. Velan, No. 04-CV-1157 (W.D. Tex.).
  • Represented specialty tobacco company Star Scientific in a decade-long legal battle against "big tobacco" seeking to enforce patents directed to an improved curing method that substantially prevents the formation of the primary carcinogen in cured tobacco, resulting in a settlement after two rounds of trials and appeals. Star Scientific v. R.J. Reynolds, No. MJG-01-CV-1504 (D. Md.).
  • Defended a manufacturer of helicopter flight data recorders and its customers in a patent infringement suit involving endothermic chemical heat sinks used for fire protection, securing a favorable settlement during expert discovery. Hayes v. Penny & Giles, No. 2-04-CV-3084 (D.N.J.).

Financial Services

  • Represented leading supplier of prepaid gift cards in patent infringement action involving system for processing financial transactions, securing a stipulated judgment of noninfringement following a favorable claim construction ruling. Every Penny Counts v. First Data, No. 8:07-CV-1254 (M.D. Fla.).

Medical Devices/Healthcare

  • Represented leading supplier of dental veneers in patent infringement suit involving process for manufacturing porcelain dental restorations, securing summary judgment of noninfringement. PSN Illinois v. Den-Mat, No. 04-CV-7232 (N.D. Ill.).

Appellate Cases

  • Represented amicus General Motors in a Federal Circuit appeal of a preliminary injunction against a supplier that threatened the supply of lithium ion batteries used in General Motors' electric vehicles, resulting in reversal of the injunction. Celgard v. LG Chem, No. 2014-1675 (Fed. Cir.).
  • Represented specialty tobacco company Star Scientific in an appeal involving patents directed to an improved tobacco curing method. Following a six-week jury trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the defendant. The Federal Circuit reversed on each of four different grounds of invalidity, and the case subsequently settled favorably. Star Scientific v. R.J. Reynolds, No. 2010-1183 (Fed. Cir.).
  • Represented leading supplier of prepaid gift cards in patent infringement appeal involving system for processing financial transactions after securing stipulated judgment of noninfringement below. Judgment of noninfringement was affirmed. Every Penny Counts v. First Data, Nos. 2008-1434,-1438 (Fed. Cir.).
  • Represented Star Scientific in an appeal involving patents directed to an improved tobacco curing method. Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the defendant, finding the patents-in-suit unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The Federal Circuit reversed, entering judgment in Star Scientific's favor on inequitable conduct and remanding for a full trial on the merits. Star Scientific v. R.J. Reynolds, No. 2007-1448 (Fed. Cir.).
  • Represented supplier of dental veneers in patent infringement appeal involving process for manufacturing porcelain dental restorations after winning on summary judgment below. Summary judgment of noninfringement was affirmed. PSN Illinois v. Den-Mat, No. 2007-1512 (Fed. Cir.).


Highlights, News & Knowledge


Speeches & Presentations

  • "The Impact of Alice v. CLS Bank," Sedona Conference Working Group 9/10 Joint Midyear Meeting, Miami, FL (May 19, 2015). Panelist: Mark Supko.
  • "Use of Experts, Daubert & Motions in Limine," Sedona Conference Working Group 10 Midyear Meeting, San Francisco, CA (April 10, 2014). Panelist: Mark Supko.
  • "The Use of Experts in Patent Litigation," Sedona Conference Working Group 10: Patent Litigation Best Practices Inaugural Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. (September 20, 2013). Panelist: Mark Supko.


Publications



Client Alerts & Newsletters



Media Mentions



Firm News & Announcements

Apr.23.2020 Chambers USA 2020 Ranks 53 Crowell & Moring Lawyers and 21 Practice Areas Among Best in U.S.
Apr.29.2019 Chambers USA 2019 Ranks 53 Crowell & Moring Lawyers and 21 Practice Areas Among Best in U.S.
Jan.25.2019 LITIGATION NOTE: Crowell & Moring Client Siemens Mobility Inc. Awarded $6.7 Million in IP Suit
May.09.2018 Chambers USA 2018 Ranks 52 Crowell & Moring Lawyers and 24 Practice Areas Among Best in U.S.
May.26.2017 Chambers USA 2017 Ranks 53 Crowell & Moring Lawyers and 23 Practice Areas Among Best in U.S.
May.27.2016 Chambers USA Ranks 56 Crowell & Moring Attorneys and 19 Leading Practice Areas Among Best in U.S.
May.19.2015 Chambers USA Ranks 53 Crowell & Moring Attorneys and 20 Leading Practice Areas Among Best in U.S.
May.23.2014 Chambers USA Ranks 51 Crowell & Moring Attorneys and 19 Leading Practice Areas Among Best in U.S.
May.24.2013 Chambers USA Ranks 45 Crowell & Moring Attorneys and 19 Leading Practice Areas Among Best in U.S.
Jan.29.2013 Crowell & Moring Releases Report, "Litigation Forecast 2013"
Jun.07.2012 Chambers USA Ranks 45 Crowell & Moring Attorneys and 18 Leading Practice Areas Among Best in U.S.
Jun.10.2011 Chambers USA Ranks Crowell & Moring Attorneys and Leading Practice Areas Among Best in U.S.
Jun.11.2010 Chambers USA Ranks 42 Crowell & Moring Attorneys and 14 Practice Areas as Among Best In Class