Richard A. Crudo

Recognized as “One to Watch” by Best Lawyers, Richard has more than a decade’s worth of experience litigating patent cases.

Richard A. Crudo is counsel in Sterne Kessler’s Electronics Practice Group. Recognized as “One to Watch” by Best Lawyers, Richard has more than a decade’s worth of experience litigating patent cases. He has represented clients from a broad range of industries—including the computer software and hardware, medical device, biotech, information technology, financial services, and smartphone industries—in high-stakes cases before the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, and the district courts. And, while Richard focuses primarily on briefing and arguing appeals, his practice encompasses all stages of litigation, from pleadings and discovery to dispositive motion practice and trial.

Complementing his appellate and district court experience, Richard also litigates, on behalf of both petitioners and patent owners, post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In these proceedings, Richard has drafted petitions and other papers, taken and defended depositions, and argued at oral hearings.

In addition to his intellectual property practice, Richard maintains a robust pro bono practice. For example, he has worked on several state appellate amicus briefs seeking to overturn criminal convictions based on flawed forensic evidence.

Prior to joining the firm, Richard was a counsel in the IP litigation department of a major international law firm, focusing on district court, appellate, and PTAB litigation for large clients in many different industries. He also clerked for the Honorable Kathleen M. O’Malley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. During law school, he served as senior managing editor of The George Washington Law Review and was a member of the Moot Court Board. And, before entering the legal profession, Richard interned for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Space and Defense Power Systems Office researching energy conversion technology for NASA spacecraft, and participated in NASA’s Space Grant Research Program.

Publications

The Constitutionality of Criminalizing False Speech Made on Social Networking Sites in a Post-Alvarez, Social Media-Obsessed World, 31 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 65 (2017)
Can Juries Decide Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101?, 27 Fed. Cir. B.J. 45 (2017)
Scandalous, Immoral and Disparaging Patents in Light of Tam, Law360 (Feb. 2016)
A Look at Constitutional Challenges to Redskins Decision, Law360 (Sept. 2014)
Estoppel as Applied to and from Patent Office Post-Grant Proceedings, 88 Pat. Trademark & Copyright J. (BNA) No. 1020 (2014)
[Way]Back to the Future: Using the Wayback Machine in Patent Litigation, Landslide, Jan.-Feb. 2014, at 16
A Patently Public Concern: Using Public Nuisance Law to Fix the False Patent Marking Statute After the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 80 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 568 (2012)
Metric Approach to Transformation Optics, 80 Phys. Rev. A 033824 (2009)

Achievements

Best Lawyers, "Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America" (2024 - 2023)

Representative Matters

Representative Appeals

Boston Scientific v. Nevro Corp. (argued appeal involving spinal cord stimulation technology and obtained complete affirmance of the PTAB’s ruling invalidating all patent claims at issue as obvious) (Fed. Cir. No. 21-1777)
WhitServe LLC v. Dropbox, Inc. (obtained affirmance of district court’s ruling invalidating Internet data backup patent as directed to unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101) (Fed. Cir. No. 19-2334)*
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co. & Highmark, Inc. (obtained affirmance of ruling invalidating three Internet data-processing patents under § 101 and dismissing another patent based on lack of ownership) (W.D. Pa. Nos. 1:14-cv-00220, 2:14-cv-01131) (Fed. Cir. Nos. 16-1128, 17-1147)*
Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc. (obtained affirmance of district court’s ruling invalidating seven postal mail security patents under § 101) (Fed. Cir. No. 16-1728)*
Pride Mobility Products Corp. v. Permobil, Inc. (successfully defended PTAB’s obviousness ruling invalidating most claims of two automated wheelchair patents) (Fed. Cir. No. 15-1585)*
Arizona v. Jason Derek Krause (filed amicus brief on behalf of The Innocence Network resulting in vacatur of a manslaughter conviction based on discredited comparative bullet lead analysis) (Ct. App. Ariz. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0108)*

Representative District Court Proceedings

HLFIP Holding, Inc. v. York County, Pennsylvania et al. (represented defendants in litigation involving postal mail contraband elimination patent, which resulted in all claims being held unpatentable under § 101) (M.D. Pa. No. 1:20-cv-00186)
Proven Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (represented defendant in multi-district litigation involving network security technology) (W.D. Tex. No. 6:21-cv-00369; MDL No. 2959)
Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp. (obtained summary judgment ruling on behalf of defendant holding that patentee’s infringement claims were barred by a covenant not to sue) (D. Or. No. 3:15-cv-00262)*

Representative PTAB Proceedings

Roku, Inc. v. Media Chain, LLC (filed six IPR petitions challenging all claims of electronic licensing patents, which resulted in early and favorable case resolution) (P.T.A.B. IPR2022-00389, -00390, -00391, -00392, -00393, -00394)
Boston Scientific Corp. v. Nevro Corp. (successfully defended spinal cord stimulation patent claim against an IPR challenge, which contributed to favorable global settlement of all litigation) (P.T.A.B. IPR2020-01563)
Bank of America, N.A. & PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (represented petitioners in CBM proceedings in which several finance and Internet-related patents were invalidated under § 101) (P.T.A.B. CBM2014-00028, -00029, -00030, -00031)*
Atrium Medical Corp. v. Davol, Inc. (represented petitioner in IPR proceeding involving hernia patch technology) (P.T.A.B. IPR2013-00184, -00185, -00186, -00187, -00188,
-00189)*