Intellectual Property

CWM is a proven partner for high stakes patent and other intellectual property litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia, particularly the Norfolk Division.  Our reputation as effective co-counsel and local counsel is exemplified by our involvement in some of the most notable cases in recent years.  We team with firms across the country, including California, New York, Texas, and Washington, D.C.

Representing both patent holders and accused infringers, our attorneys have experience with every stage of the fast-paced litigation of the “Rocket Docket,”  including motions to transfer venue, motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, motions to stay pending IPR or CBM review, Markman hearings, motions for summary judgment, jury selection, jury trials, and post-trial disputes over interest, royalties, and design-around efforts.

In 2012, we were part of the successful trial team in one of the largest patent cases tried to jury verdict in the Norfolk Division.  In 2014, we were counsel to the successful movant in the first case in the country to be stayed following the PTAB’s application of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International from the U.S. Supreme Court.

In all of our engagements, we offer targeted, cost-effective representation, coupled with a reputation in the local federal courts earned over the last 97 years.

For more information, please feel free to contact us.  For information about our local counsel services, please see Local Counsel Representation.

Representative Cases

Elastec, Inc. v. Desmi, Inc., 2:15-cv-228, E.D.Va. (trademark infringement involving oil spill cleanup devices).

Virginia Innovation Sciences v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al., 2:12-cv-548, 2:13-cv-332, 2:14-cv-217, E.D.Va. (series of patent infringement cases accusing mobile devices).

Freight Tracking Technologies v. APM Terminals Virginia, Inc., et al., 2:13-cv-708, 2:14-cv-105, E.D.Va. (consolidated patent infringement cases accusing location technology).

Oasis Brands, Inc. v. Green Innovations Ltd., 2:13-cv-529, E.D.Va. (trademark case involving challenge to personal jurisdiction in Virginia).

Segin Systems, Inc. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., et al., 2:13-cv-190, E.D.Va. (patent infringement case accusing account reconciliation software).

I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc., et al., 2:11-cv-512, E.D.Va. (patent infringement case accusing search engine advertising).

News and Updates
Corporate Transparency Act
Posted on February 12, 2024
The new federal Corporate Transparency Act became effective January 1, 2024.  The act requires certain companies in the United States to disclose information regarding its beneficial owners to the US…...
Read More
Securities and Exchange Commission Final Rule on Cybersecurity
Posted on October 18, 2023
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently published a final rule, effective September 5, 2023, applicable to publicly traded companies on Cybersecurity Risk Management, Strategy, Governance, and Incident Disclosure.[1]  The…...
Read More
Eight Crenshaw, Ware & Martin, P.L.C. Attorneys Named to 2022 Best Lawyers® in America List
Posted on August 19, 2021
Norfolk, VA, — Crenshaw, Ware & Martin P.L.C. is pleased to announce that Best Lawyers has recognized four of the Firm’s attorneys as “Best Lawyers in America”, two as “Lawyer of…...
Read More
Video Conferencing Best Practices
Posted on April 24, 2020
Video Conferencing Best PracticesDownload With many employees transitioning from the office to teleworking from home, video conferencing has surged in popularity and demand. Wherever your work takes you, consider these best…...
Read More
Teleworking Data Security Tips
Posted on March 16, 2020
Teleworking Data Security TipsDownload Teleworking data-security is essential to protecting company data when employees are working at remote locations.  Consider these simple tips to encourage your company and employees to maintain…...
Read More
Crenshaw, Ware & Martin Promotes Hartnett to Partner and Welcomes Two New Attorneys
Posted on February 5, 2020
Crenshaw, Ware & Martin, PLC is pleased to announce David C. Hartnett as newly elected partner, and welcome two new Associate Attorneys to the firm, Kristin D. Smith and Alexander R. McDaniel. Mr.…...
Read More
Virginia Federal court allows jury in trademark case even where demand came 5 months too late
Posted on January 28, 2016
In a Lanham Act case involving pharmaceutical products, Judge Conrad of the Western District of Virginia granted plaintiff’s motion for a jury trial, even though it was made only four…...
Read More
Disappointed that PTAB declined inter partes patent review? Tough, EDVA Judge rules
Posted on January 28, 2016
The Patent and Trademark Board’s decision on whether to grant inter partes review cannot be challenged in court. In Medtronic, Inc. v. Lee, 1:15-cv-946 (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2016), after…...
Read More
Court Orders Arbitration of Patent License Dispute
Posted on December 17, 2015
Virginia federal courts still err in favor of arbitration in business cases, even where parties take measures to avoid it. In University of Virginia Patent Foundation v. DynaVox, where…...
Read More
Jury awards patent victory to I/P Engine in case against Google and others
Posted on November 1, 2012
A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in favor of I/P Engine in a patent infringement case against AOL, Google, IAC Search &…...
Read More
Lawyer Search