Molly A. Jones
Overview
Clients turn to Molly A. Jones as a strategic advisor and critical thinker to help optimize their business goals. As part of Crowell’s Litigation and Intellectual Property practices, Molly focuses on helping companies protect their technology assets, drawing on her deep litigation experience that encompasses the full range of intellectual property law, including patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and copyright issues.
Career & Education
- Duke University, B.A., With Distinction, biology, 2008
- University of California, Hastings College of the Law, J.D., cum Laude, 2014
- California
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Molly's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.02.24
On March 25, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a case with significant implications for the application of the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). This case involved the importation of two transcatheter heart valve systems by Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., an India-based medical device company, to San Francisco for a medical conference. According to Meril, these heart valve systems, part of Meril’s Myval System designed to treat heart disease, were never displayed or offered for sale at the conference but were instead stored in a bag in a hotel closet and later in a storage room. The Court’s decision to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Meril brings to light the nuances of applying the safe harbor provision in patent infringement cases.
Firm News | 3 min read | 02.08.24
ScentAir Wins Delaware Jury Verdict Against Prolitec Patent Claims
Press Coverage | 02.02.24
Press Coverage | 01.29.24
Del. Jury Finds ScentAir Didn't Infringe Liquid Air Freshener IP
Representative Matters
- Representing the University of California in obtaining a $50 million settlement and public apology from the University of Southern California and one of its faculty members over USC’s 2015 raid on an Alzheimer’s Disease research program at UC San Diego, a result reported on the front page of the Los Angeles Times as a "jaw-dropping conclusion" to "unprecedented litigation" concerning the protection of academic research.
- Confidential Failed ERP Installation Arbitration (San Francisco JAMS ADR, 2019). Represented an international provider of online educational services in a confidential arbitration against multinational software corporation in a recovery action related to a failed Enterprise Resource Management (ERP) software installation. Matter resolved on eve of merits hearing.
- Software License Audit Defense. Represented several software licensees, in numerous industries, in contentious software audits and licensing disputes against global enterprise software providers.
Molly's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.02.24
On March 25, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a case with significant implications for the application of the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). This case involved the importation of two transcatheter heart valve systems by Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., an India-based medical device company, to San Francisco for a medical conference. According to Meril, these heart valve systems, part of Meril’s Myval System designed to treat heart disease, were never displayed or offered for sale at the conference but were instead stored in a bag in a hotel closet and later in a storage room. The Court’s decision to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Meril brings to light the nuances of applying the safe harbor provision in patent infringement cases.
Firm News | 3 min read | 02.08.24
ScentAir Wins Delaware Jury Verdict Against Prolitec Patent Claims
Press Coverage | 02.02.24
Press Coverage | 01.29.24
Del. Jury Finds ScentAir Didn't Infringe Liquid Air Freshener IP
Molly's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.02.24
On March 25, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a case with significant implications for the application of the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). This case involved the importation of two transcatheter heart valve systems by Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., an India-based medical device company, to San Francisco for a medical conference. According to Meril, these heart valve systems, part of Meril’s Myval System designed to treat heart disease, were never displayed or offered for sale at the conference but were instead stored in a bag in a hotel closet and later in a storage room. The Court’s decision to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Meril brings to light the nuances of applying the safe harbor provision in patent infringement cases.
Firm News | 3 min read | 02.08.24
ScentAir Wins Delaware Jury Verdict Against Prolitec Patent Claims
Press Coverage | 02.02.24
Press Coverage | 01.29.24
Del. Jury Finds ScentAir Didn't Infringe Liquid Air Freshener IP