1. Home
  2. |Experience
  3. |Intellectual Property
  4. |Intellectual Property Litigation

Intellectual Property Litigation

Overview

With 100+ lawyers, the intellectual property team at Crowell & Moring is recognized by leading industry publications Chambers USA, Chambers Europe, U.S. News & World Report Best Law Firms, Managing Intellectual Property magazine’s IP Stars, and Patexia as among the top intellectual property practitioners in the field. Our experience, coupled with our commitment to client service, has attracted Fortune 100 and other top corporations whose brands are household names and whose products lead the way in technological innovation.

Our IP litigators are trial lawyers first and foremost, experienced and respected in every forum where patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secrets are contested. The team’s lawyers have appeared before state and federal trial and appellate courts, the International Trade Commission, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and arbitration tribunals. 

We help clients enforce and defend their intellectual property.  Our experienced, assertive, and creative litigators are adept at handling both offensive and defensive cases. Clients turn to us in bet-the-company litigation to enjoin competitors that have copied their brands or patented inventions. We have also defeated baseless preliminary injunction motions in district court and on appeal, ensuring clients can launch their products without any restriction.    

With the resources and economies of a full-service law firm and a seasoned group of IP litigators, we help businesses prevent and resolve disputes quickly and favorably.  Our guiding principle in litigation is to keep it simple and efficient.  The legal principles may be complex, but to succeed, trial themes need to be clear and persuasive and developed early in the case. Discovery needs to be strategic and purposeful.  By focusing on our client’s objectives, we are able to keep litigation costs down while, at the same time, achieving success.

Contacts

See All Professionals

Insights

Firm News | 2 min read | 11.19.24

Crowell Earns National Practice Rankings in Best Law Firms 2025

Crowell & Moring ranked nationally in 21 practice areas in the 2025 edition of Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms.” In addition, the firm was ranked in 36 metropolitan categories.

View All Insights

Representative Matters

|

Patent Litigation Matters

The patent litigation cases described below are examples of the experience that Crowell & Moring LLP attorneys have gained during and/or prior to their tenure with the firm.

District Court

  • Agere v. Macronix (S.D.N.Y): Represented defendant, obtaining a stay of litigation pending arbitration (favorable settlement was reached after arbitration).
  • Apcon v. Curtiss-Wright and Systran, et al. (C.D. Cal.): Represented defendants in infringement action involving high-speed fiber optic switching technology (after filing infringement counterclaims, obtained favorable settlement).
  • Aptar v. Summit (N.D. Ill.): Won willful infringement verdict, and defeated infringement counterclaims, regarding various patents concerning mounting caps and other features of aerosol spray valves.
  • Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. (M.D. Pa.) (Fed. Cir.): Represented plaintiff in a jury trial concerning electrical fittings in September 2009. The jury found in favor of Arlington on infringement, willful infringement, and breach of contract. The jury also awarded Arlington its lost profits. The judgment was affirmed on appeal.
  • Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. (M.D. Pa.) (Fed. Cir.): Represented plaintiff in a four day contempt hearing in which the court found the defendant in contempt of an injunction by manufacturing products that were "colorable imitations" of the previously enjoined products. The court enjoined the competitor's new products and awarded Arlington lost profits and attorney fees. Arlington also recently won a motion to dismiss a premature appeal of the contempt order filed before the sanctions were awarded.
  • Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. General Motors Corp, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represent defendant Mercedes-Benz in patent infringement action involving vehicle sensor and airbag technology.
  • Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems v. ArvinMeritor (N.D. Ohio): Represent plaintiff Bendix in patent infringement action involving brake systems.
  • Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems v. Haldex Brake (N.D. Ohio): Represented manufacturer of air disk brakes systems for tractor-trailers in week-long jury trial on patent infringement claim against prime competitor, winning jury verdict of willful infringement and subsequent award of permanent injunction, enhanced damages and attorney’s fees.
  • Clear with Computers v. Basset, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represent various UTC defendants in patent infringement action involving web-based purchasing systems.
  • Curtiss-Wright v. Velan (W.D. Tex.; Fed. Cir.): Represented patentee in infringement action involving life-saving coke drum de-heading valve used in oil refining industry. Won appeal at the Federal Circuit.
  • Curtiss-Wright v. Zimmermann & Jansen, et al. (C.D. Cal.): Represented patentee in infringement action involving automated coke drum de-heading technology (obtained favorable settlement).
  • Every Penny Counts v. First Data Corp., et al. (M.D. Fla.): Represented financial services company in patent infringement action involving prepaid gift cards (won on Markman decision; upheld on appeal).
  • Fulhorst v. DaimlerChrysler AG, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented defendants DaimlerChrysler and BMW in patent infringement action relating to panic alarms for vehicles (obtained favorable settlement).
  • Harris Industries v. Macronix International (E.D. Va.): Represented the defendant, a Taiwanese manufacturer of semiconductors, in a patent infringement suit (settlement was reached immediately after the Markman hearing).
  • Henrob v. BMW (E.D. Mich.): Represent defendant, a German automaker, in patent infringement action involving riveting process used in manufacturing vehicles imported into the United States.
  • Invacare Corp. v. Drive Medical (N.D. Ohio): Represented plaintiff Invacare in patent infringement action involving adjustable height beds and in parallel ITC action; obtained ITC Consent Order, where defendant agreed to stop importing accused products.
  • Knorr-Bremse v. Dana (E.D. Va.; Fed. Cir.): Won willful infringement decision and attorneys' fees following trial on patent relating to air disc brake technology used in commercial vehicle industry, leading to seminal Federal Circuit decision on willfulness.
  • LifeNet Health v. LifeCell Corp. (E.D. Va.): Obtained a jury verdict of over $34 million for LifeNet Health in a patent infringement action involving the preservation of soft-tissue grafts.
  • Linex v. Nortel, et al. (S.D. Fla.): Represented defendant Nortel in patent infringement action involving distributed telecommunications network using spread spectrum modulation.
  • MAN Roland v. Heidelberg Web Systems (D.N.H.): Represented plaintiff in patent litigation involving high-speed printing press technology (obtained favorable settlement during trial).
  • Minerva Industries, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represent defendant AT&T Mobility in patent infringement action involving cellular telephones.
  • MIT v. Abacus Software, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented software developer in multi-party patent infringement litigation involving color reproduction technology (obtained favorable settlement).
  • Morris Reese v. AT&T, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented defendant AT&T in patent infringement action involving telephony systems providing call waiting with caller ID; won on Markman decision (upheld on appeal).
  • Oakley v. BMW (S.D. Cal.): Represented defendant BMW in patent infringement action involving automotive accessories.
  • Orion IP v. Mercedes-Benz USA, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented defendants BMW and Porsche in patent infringement action involving electronic proposal generation (settled after invalidity contentions).
  • Orion IP v. Xerox Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented defendant Eastman Kodak in patent infringement action involving electronic proposal generation.
  • Rembrandt Data v. AOL, et al. (E.D. Va.): Represent defendant Canon USA in patent infringement action involving V.34 modem patents (won summary judgment on license exhaustion, affirmed on appeal).
  • RIM v. Eastman Kodak (N.D. Tex.): Represent defendant Kodak in patent infringement suit concerning patents on digital camera technology and operating system technology.
  • Screentone Systems Corporation v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represent defendant Eastman Kodak in patent infringement action involving methods for producing digital halftone screens.
  • Sorensen v. DaimlerChrysler AG (D.N.J.; USITC): Represented defendant, an automobile manufacturer, against claims involving patented method for manufacturing plastic taillight lenses.

International Trade Commission Section 337

  • Vehicular Smart Watch Systems, Related Software (337-TA-3093): Defended General Motors Company and On in multi-forum litigation resulting in complainant's swift voluntary withdrawal of allegations pre-institution.
  • 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.
  • Components for Installations of Marine Autopilots with GPS or IMU (337‐TA‐738): Represented respondents FLIR Systems, Raymarine UK Ltd., and Raymarine, Inc. in an investigation related to marine autopilots with a GPS or IMU. Favorable settlement without exclusion.
  • Certain Adjustable-Height Beds (337-TA-734): Represented complainant Invacare in an investigation related to adjustable hospital beds, resulting in a Consent Order excluding the accused products from entry into the U.S.
  • Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (337‐TA‐703): Represent complainant Kodak in ITC and parallel district court against respondent RIM.  Settled favorably.
  • Machine Vision Software and Systems (337‐TA‐680): Represented respondents Fuji America Corp. and Fuji Machine Co. in investigation related to machine vision systems. Settled Favorably without exclusion.
  • Wireless Communication Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-675): Represented respondents Kyocera, Sprint, MetroPCS, and VirginMobile in investigation brought by SPH America relating to wireless communication devices.
  • 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.
  • Wireless Communication Chips and Chipsets and Products Containing Same (337-TA-614): Represented respondent Qualcomm in investigation regarding cellular service and device industry. Successfully obtained early termination of investigation before trial.
  • 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.
  • Baseband Processor Chips and Chipsets (337-TA-543): Represented Intervenor Sprint Nextel Corp. in the investigation brought by Broadcom against Qualcomm related to baseband processor chips used in wireless handsets before Judge Bullock. Lead counsel during the remedy phase, the Presidential Review Period, before IPR at customs, and during the enforcement action. Obtained a stay of the limited exclusion order and won the appeal to the Federal Circuit, resulting in the seminal Kyocera Wireless Corp., et al., v. Int'l Trade Comm'n decision.
  • Automobile Tail Light Lenses (337‐TA‐502): Represented respondent Daimler and successfully obtained summary determination in Daimler's favor before the hearing.
  • Musical Instrument Products: Represented complainant Yamaha Musical Instruments against foreign importers of gray market goods. Settled favorably before institution.

Patent Interference

  • Johnson v. Heine (ColorLink, Inc. v. Unaxis Balzers AG), Interference No. 105,310 (BPAI). Represented patent applicant in interference directed to color-separation technology for video displays.
  • Rossin v. Kanno (Guild Associates Inc. v. Hitachi Ltd.), Interference Nos. 105,402 and 105,512 (BPAI). Represented Hitachi Ltd. in interferences directed to abatement of perfluorinated compounds.
  • Rowells v. Vichinsky (International Truck and Engine Corp. v. Mann & Hummel GmbH), Interference No. 105,518 (BPAI). Represented patentee in interference directed to fuel rail for intake manifold of internal combustion engine.
  • SomaLogic, Inc. v. Santa Coloma, Interference No. 105,493 (BPAI). Represented patent applicant in interference directed to methods of obtaining aptamers.
  • ZymoGenetics v. Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Interference No. 105,433 (BPAI). Represented patent applicant in interference directed to fibroblast mitogenesis.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Representative Matters

  • Acrux DDS Pty Ltd. and Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Kaken Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd. And Valeant Pharmaceuticals. et al. (PTAB)Successfully represented Argentum Pharmaceuticals in challenging the validity of Kaken Pharmaceuticals’ patent relating to a method of treating onychomycosis, a fungal disorder of the nail. The PTAB agreed with our client and found that the claims of the ‘506 patent were obvious in view of the disclosures of the prior publications. As a result, the claims of the ‘506 patent were cancelled.
  • Apotex, Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (PTAB) Successfully represented Apotex in an inter partes review proceeding  challenging the validity of an Amgen patent relating to protein refolding technology and related uses as companion drugs to chemotherapy. The PTAB agreed with our client and found the claims of the ‘138 patent obvious over the prior art.
  • Apotex, Inc. v. Novartis AG (PTAB) Successfully represented petitioner Apotex in inter partes review related to a multiple sclerosis drug, securing victory for Apotex at the PTAB and in the resulting appeal at the Federal Circuit.
  • St. Jude Medical, LLC v. The Regents of the University of California (PTAB) Successfully represented patent owner The Regents of the University of California in three related patent actions. Achieved favorable resolution by securing full dismissal of the IPRs.

Trademark Representative Matters

The trademark litigation cases described below are examples of the experience that Crowell & Moring LLP attorneys have gained during and/or prior to their tenure with the firm.

District Court

  • DuPont.v. Enzo Milano (C.D. Cal.): Represented DuPont in securing default judgment against defendant in trademark infringement action.
  • First Franklin v. Franklin First (C.D. Cal.): Represented Franklin First in trademark infringement action in which court denied preliminary injunction and plaintiff thereafter voluntarily withdrew action.
  • Lucasfilm v. American Media, et al. (N.D. Cal.): Represented Lucasfilm in winning preliminary injunction for infringement and dilution of Lucasfilm's trademarks.
  • Symbility v. Xactware (E.D. Mich.): Represent trademark owner in declaratory judgment action involving infringement of trademarks through improper use in connection with Internet search engines.
  • 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.

Trademark Trial Appeal Board

  • DuPont v. duPont Registry (T.T.A.B.): Represented DuPont in opposition to applications to register variations of DUPONT PUBLISHING.
  • Leica Microsystems v. Krauter (T.T.A.B.): Represented trademark owner in cancellation proceeding involving optical goods and related products.
  • Nextel Communications v. Motorola (T.T.A.B.):Represented telecommunications service provider in trademark opposition relating to aural signal emitted by two-way radios.
  • Southwestern Management v. Ocinomled (T.T.A.B.): Represented restaurant in complex concurrent use proceeding involving the DELMONICO name.
  • Durez Corporation v. Sika AG (T.T.A.B.): Represented Durez Corp. in cancellation proceeding relating to trademark used on resins and adhesives.
  • Durez Corporation v. Performance Sealing, Inc. (T.T.A.B.): Represented Durez Corp. in cancellation proceeding relating to trademark used on sealing and insulating materials.

Copyright Representative Matters

The copyright litigation cases described below are examples of the experience that Crowell & Moring LLP attorneys have gained during and/or prior to their tenure with the firm.

  • Business Software Association v. Engineering Design (D.D.C.): Represented plaintiff in copyright infringement case relating to pirated software. Obtained an ex parte seizure order, led a "raid" of defendant's premises to seize infringing software, and ultimately won a permanent injunction.
  • Carodel v. Zeeman (Commercial Court of Antwerp, Belgium; President of the Commercial Court of Antwerp, Belgium; Courts of The Hague in the Netherlands): Represent plaintiff in a copyright case involving counterfeited children's clothing.
  • Co Realty v. Alliance Valuation Group, et al. (D. Md.): Represented plaintiff real estate information company in litigation asserting copyright infringement and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
  • CoStar Realty Information, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc. (D. Md.): Represented plaintiff in copyright and trademark infringement case involving unauthorized use of copyrighted photographs by competing commercial real estate website; achieved favorable settlement before trial.
  • DMLights v. Artemide (Commercial Court of Antwerp, Belgium): Represent defendant in copyright case involving counterfeited lighting.
  • Eddy Merckx Cycles v. Selle Italia (Commercial Court of Brussels, Belgium): Represent plaintiff in copyright and trademark infringement case involving unauthorized use of copyrighted photographs and trademarks for an advertising campaign.
  • Gudrun v. Inno.com (Commercial Court of Antwerp, Belgium and Commercial Court of Brussels, Belgium): Represent plaintiff in copyright case involving counterfeited software.
  • Ikea v. Facebook, Immoweb and Others (Courts of Brussels, Belgium): Represent plaintiff in copyright and trademark infringement case involving unauthorized use of copyrighted photographs and trademarks for an advertising campaign.
  • Lucasfilm v. H&S Media, et al.(N.D. Cal.): Represented Lucasfilm for copyright issues related to Phantom Menace movie release and Internet infringements.
  • Nortel Networks Inc., et al. v. AIT Wireless Inc., et al. (M.D. Fl.): Represented plaintiff in case involving copyright, breach of license agreement, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims against defendant that copied client's telecommunications software without authorization; achieved favorable settlement with respect to one defendant and entry of default judgment with respect to a second defendant.
  • Nortel Networks Inc., et al.. v. Arbinet-Thexchange (E.D. Va.): Represented plaintiff in case involving copyright, breach of license agreement, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims against defendant that copied client's telecommunications software without authorization; achieved favorable settlement.
  • Skywalker Sound v. Villegas (N.D. Cal.): Represented Lucasfilm on copyright issues related to Lost World movie release; obtained favorable result on sound infringement matter.
  • Sylvan Learning Systems, Inc. v. National Computer Systems, Inc. (D. Minn): Represented defendant computer software manufacturer in infringement case relating to testing software and written materials.
  • Toei Animation v. Melimedias (Commercial Court of Nivelles, Belgium): Represent plaintiff in copyright infringement case involving counterfeited Manga DVDs.
  • Tranzact Systems v. The Stanley Works (N.D. Ill.): Represented defendant Stanley regarding computer software infringement allegation.
  • U.S. South Communications, Inc. v. Northern Telecom, Inc. (W.D.N.C.): Represented defendant in declaratory judgment action relating to plaintiffs' copyright violations, breach of license agreement, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims involving the copying of client's telecommunications software without authorization; achieved favorable settlement.

Trade Secrets Representative Matters

The trade secrets cases described below are examples of the experience that Crowell & Moring LLP attorneys have gained during and/or prior to their tenure with the firm.

  • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Kolon Industries, Inc., et al., No. 3:09-cv-58 (E.D. Va.): Represented plaintiff DuPont in case alleging misappropriation of over 100 trade secrets relating to KEVLAR® fiber technology in one of the largest trade secret misappropriation cases in United States history and obtained a $919.9 million verdict against Kolon for the theft of KEVLAR® technology -- the largest-ever contested verdict in a trade secrets case, as well as the largest verdict ever in the State of Virginia.
  • Florida Digital Network, Inc. v. Northern Telecom, Inc. (M.D. Fl.): Represented defendant in declaratory judgment action relating to plaintiff's copyright violations, breach of license agreement, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims involving the copying of client's telecommunications software without authorization. We successfully litigated removal to federal court and achieved favorable settlement.
  • Ajinomoto Co. Inc. v. Global Biochem Technology & Co. (Antwerp Court of Appeal): Represent Ajinomoto in the Belgian chapter of the global L-Lysine-battle. Dispute involved fierce patent litigation, a complex chapter on confidential know-how, including strategic interaction between know-how and patents, complicated international jurisdiction and infringement issues, etc.
  • Caterpillar v. Sturman Industries, et al. (C.D. Ill.): Represented client through two five-week jury trials and one bench trial. We obtained summary judgment against all counterclaims and favorable verdicts from both juries and ownership of all of the patents.
  • Van Turenhoudt & Partners v. HR Attitude (Brussels Court of First Instance): Represented defendant and achieved a favorable settlement in litigation initiated by plaintiff after client left plaintiff and set up its own headhunting company in the financial sector. Besides copyright and database protection, the litigation also related to allegedly protected know-how dealing with recruitment processes, selection techniques, and client development.

Contacts

See All Professionals

Insights

Firm News | 2 min read | 11.19.24

Crowell Earns National Practice Rankings in Best Law Firms 2025

Crowell & Moring ranked nationally in 21 practice areas in the 2025 edition of Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms.” In addition, the firm was ranked in 36 metropolitan categories.

View All Insights

Insights

Firm News | 2 min read | 11.19.24

Crowell Earns National Practice Rankings in Best Law Firms 2025

Press Coverage | 09.04.24

AI Co. Keeps Engine Supplier In Trade Secrets Suit

Firm News | 8 min read | 08.15.24

The Best Lawyers in America 2025 Recognizes 42 Crowell & Moring Attorneys, Three Selected as Lawyer of the Year

Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.13.24

The Federal Circuit Defines the “Public Disclosure” Exception to Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)
|

View All Insights

Professionals

View All Professionals

Insights

Firm News | 2 min read | 11.19.24

Crowell Earns National Practice Rankings in Best Law Firms 2025

Crowell & Moring ranked nationally in 21 practice areas in the 2025 edition of Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms.” In addition, the firm was ranked in 36 metropolitan categories.

View All Insights