Richard A. Crudo is a director in Sterne Kessler’s Electronics and Trial & Appellate Practice Groups. Recognized as “One to Watch” by Best Lawyers, Richard has more than a decade’s worth of experience litigating intellectual property (IP) cases. He has represented clients from a broad range of industries—including the computer software and hardware, medical device, biotech, financial services, and smartphone industries—in high-stakes cases before the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, and the district courts. Richard is particularly interested in helping clients navigate evolving patent and copyright issues surrounding cutting-edge artificial intelligence and machine learning technology.

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. And, complementing his appellate and district court experience, Richard litigates post-grant proceedings on behalf of both petitioners and patent owners 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 IP practice, Richard maintains a robust pro bono practice litigating cases involving flawed forensic technology. For example, he has worked on several state appellate amicus briefs seeking to overturn criminal convictions based on now-discredited forensic evidence. Richard also argued as amicus on behalf of law professors in the California Court of Appeals to reverse the dismissal of a constitutional challenge to Orange County, California’s “Spit and Acquit” DNA collection program.

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)

Representative Appeals

  • Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Roku, Inc. (successfully defended PTAB’s obviousness ruling invalidating claims of three patents related to remote control devices for home entertainment systems) (Fed. Cir. No. 21-1992)
  • Thompson v. Spitzer (argued appeal on behalf of law professors as amicus in support of challenge to the constitutionality of Orange County, California’s “Spit and Acquit” DNA collection program) (Cal. Ct. App. No. G060988)
  • 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, and successfully defended ruling on appeal) (M.D. Pa. No. 1:20-cv-00186; Fed. Cir. No. 22-1940)
  • 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)*

* Prior Firm Experience

  • Best Lawyers, “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America” (2024 – 2023)

  • B.S., The George Washington University Law School, with honors
  • B.S., Physics, The George Washington University Law School
  • B.S., Physics, The George Washington University Law School, magna cum laude

  • District of Columbia
  • New York
  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • United States Patent & Trademark Office
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

  • Federal Circuit Bar Association

The Honorable Kathleen M. O’Malley, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Appeals: Summaries of Key 2023 Decisions

Virtual, January 23, 2024 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM EST

Webinar

Developments in IPR Estoppel

Virtual, December 5, 2023 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM EST

Related News & Insights

From Richard A. Crudo

In the News

May 6, 2024

Get-Grin Receives Favorable Grants in Patent Infringement Lawsuit

Dental Products Report

In the News

May 2, 2024

Grin Granted Stay of Dental Monitoring Lawsuit Over Patents

Orthodontic Products

In the News

February 8, 2024

Federal Circuit Revives Food Slicer Patent Challenges

Law360

Bylined Articles

February 8, 2024

The Changing Contours of IPR Estoppel Law

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox Andrew Z. Barnett, Richard A. Crudo

Reports

February 8, 2024

2023 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox Multiple Authors

Press Release

February 8, 2024

Award-Winning PTAB Team Publishes 2023 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends Report

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox

Bylined Articles

January 24, 2024

Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., 64 F.4th 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Lourie, Clevenger (dissenting in part), Stark)

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox Richard A. Crudo

Bylined Articles

January 24, 2024

Bertini v. Apple Inc., 63 F.4th 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Moore, Taranto, Chen)

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox Richard A. Crudo

Press Release

January 24, 2024

Sterne Kessler Publishes Federal Circuit IP Appeals: Summaries of Key 2023 Decisions Report

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox

Webinar Recordings & Materials

January 23, 2024

Federal Circuit IP Appeals: Summaries of Key 2023 Decisions

Reports

January 22, 2024

Federal Circuit IP Appeals: Summaries of Key 2023 Decisions (8th Edition)

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox Multiple Authors

In the News

January 4, 2024

Sterne Kessler Elects Six New Directors in 2024

The Patent Lawyer

Press Release

January 4, 2024

Sterne Kessler Elects Six New Directors in 2024

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox

Webinar Recordings & Materials

December 5, 2023

Developments in IPR Estoppel

Press Release

November 6, 2023

Sterne Kessler Notches Multiple Rankings in 2024 “Best Law Firms” List

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox

Bylined Articles

September 22, 2023

Ironburg and the Elusive “Skilled Searcher” Estoppel Standard for Newly Discovered Prior Art

Lexology Richard A. Crudo

Bylined Articles

August 25, 2023

From Warhol to War on HAL: Copyright Infringement and Fair Use as Applied to Artificial Intelligence After the Supreme Court’s Warhol Decision

The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law Multiple Authors

In the News

August 18, 2023

Newman Issues Fed. Circ. Decision Affirming Roku PTAB Wins

Law360

In the News

April 14, 2023

DNA Collection Program Run by Orange County DA Can Face Challenge

Daily Journal

In the News

April 14, 2023

Calif. Court OKs Challenge to 'Spit and Acquit' DNA Collection

Law360

Press Release

February 7, 2023

Sterne Kessler Publishes Report Examining Key 2022 Federal Circuit Rulings on PTAB and ITC Appeals

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox

Reports

February 6, 2023

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox Multiple Authors

Bylined Articles

February 6, 2023

Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC, 25 F.4th 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (O’Malley, Clevenger, Stoll)

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox Richard A. Crudo

Press Release

August 18, 2022

Seven Sterne Kessler Attorneys Recognized in 2023 Editions of Best Lawyers and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox

Firm Announcements

June 9, 2022

Sterne Kessler and D.C. Bar Pro Bono Center Host Sixth Annual Small Business Clinic

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox

In the News

April 26, 2022

Pennsylvania Prison Beats Patent Suit Over Scanning Inmate Mail

Bloomberg Law

Firm Announcements

April 25, 2022

District Court Patent Victory in Infringement Suit

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox

In the News

March 18, 2022

Fed. Circ. Won't Revive Boston Scientific Implant Patent

Law360

In the News

March 18, 2022

Boston Scientific Chronic Pain Patent Nixed by Federal Circuit

Bloomberg Law

In the News

March 10, 2022

Fed. Circ. Gives 7 Patent Appeals Quick Closure

Law360

In the News

March 10, 2022

Federal Circuit Rejects Boston Scientific Patent Validity Claims

Bloomberg Law

In the News

March 8, 2022

Boston Scientific Patent Argument ‘Stupid,’ Fed. Cir. Judge Says

Bloomberg Law