Insights

Washington, D.C.—April 10, 2023: On April 7, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed three IPR decisions obtained by Crowell invalidating every asserted claim of three patents owned by Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation that were asserted against BMW: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,104,347; 7,237,634; and 8,630,761.

New York – October 30, 2019: Lawyers Alliance for New York recognized Scott L. Bittman, counsel in Crowell & Moring’s Intellectual Property Group in New York, with the 2019 Cornerstone Award. This award honors individuals and institutions that have provided outstanding pro bono legal services to nonprofit groups that are improving the quality of life for low-income New Yorkers. 

Washington – September 20, 2019: Super Lawyers has recognized 82 Crowell & Moring lawyers as leaders in their field in Southern California, Northern California, New York Metro, and Washington, D.C. The lawyers listed below were named in the corresponding issues of 2019 Super Lawyers Magazine, the Super Lawyers 2019 "Rising Stars" Edition, or the Super Lawyers 2019 Women’s Edition. Lawyers were identified through a peer nomination process and listed by respective practice areas for which they were selected.Los Angeles (Southern California)

Starting in June 2021, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted a policy to allow for the Director of the USPTO to review certain decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued in inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post grant reviews (PGRs).  That process, known as Director Review, was created in response to the decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., whereby the Supreme Court held that final written decisions of administrative patent judges in IPR proceedings must be subject to the review of the Director of the USPTO before they become the decisions of the agency.  141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021).

On February 24, 2023, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a precedential Director Review Decision in the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of Nested Bean, Inc. v. Big Beings Pty Ltd.[1] The decision modified the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision that had found all challenged multiple dependent claims fully invalid, notwithstanding the fact that one of the independent claims from which the multiple dependent claims depended was not found to be invalid.[2]

In 800 Adept, Inc. v. Murex Securities, Ltd., et al. (Nos. 2007-1272, -1356; August 29, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirms a trial court's judgment of invalidity of certain asserted patent claims, reverses the trial court's judgment of invalidity with respect to unasserted patent claims and of tortious interference, and vacates the trial court's judgment on infringement and invalidity of certain claims.

Crowell & Moring is proud to sponsor ACI’s 14th Annual Practitioners’ Think Tank on ITC Litigation and Enforcement. Key members of the ITC Bench, Senior ITC attorneys, and leading In-House Counsel will spend two days of innovation and interactive discussions on the latest trends and developments in ITC litigation and enforcement. Crowell Partner Katie Clune will discuss the most important section 337 developments of the past year and their impact on ITC practice and procedure.