FacultyFaculty/Author Profile
Rachel Krevans

Rachel Krevans

Morrison & Foerster LLP

San Francisco, CA, USA

Rachel Krevans is chair of the firm's Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group and co-chair of the firm's intellectual Property Practice Group. For more than 20 years, Ms. Krevans has tried patent disputes involving all manner of products in the electronics and biosciences areas. Her work in these industries has involved an assortment of technologies-from DVRs, cable and satellite TV, and computer-phone interfaces, to HIV and cancer treatments, vaccines, and blood and antibody research.

Ms. Krevans's contentious matters often involve some of the most difficult and complex circumstances. Take for example the rare defense jury verdict in favor of her client EchoStar in the Eastern District of Texas in 2007. At the time of the trial, plaintiff Forgent was seeking $205 million in damages. Her winning trial strategy created a new model for defending patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

Another recent and complex case involved her client Bayer in a patent infringement matter against Abbott Diabetes Care in the Northern District of California. After Bayer won summary judgment on one of the two patents, the case was quickly reassigned to a new judge, who set a six-week timeline for a trial on the second patent. Bayer won at trial, prevailing on both patents and all asserted claims.

Chambers notes Ms. Krevans as "one of the most thorough, calculating and technically astute IP lawyers around" and says "the powerful scientific mind of Rachel Krevans has impressed clients in the life sciences industry." In 2013, Chambers USA Women in Law honored her as "IP Lawyer of the Year."

Abbott Diabetes Care vs. Roche Diagnostics Corp and Bayer Healthcare LLC, U.S.D.Ct., N.D. Cal.
(Northern District of California) In August 2005, plaintiff Abbott Labs filed suit in the Northern District of California against Bayer and Roche, two of the leading manufacturers of blood glucose meters and strips, asserting infringement of two of Abbott's patents. After our client Bayer won summary judgment on one of the patents, the case was reassigned to a new judge, who consolidated it for trial with a related set of cases involving Becton-Dickinson and set a trial date within six weeks on the second patent. Roche settled two days before trial. After a six-day bench trial in June 2008, in a 54-page opinion, the court found in Bayer's favor on all claims. The court invalidated every asserted claim as obvious, and also found the patent unenforceable. In January 2010, the Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment in all respects. The Court then took en banc the issue whether it should rewrite the law of inequitable conduct, which it subsequently did in the recent Therasense decision (which did not affect the ultimate outcome of the case).

Confidential Life Sciences Arbitration.
In 2011, Ms. Krevans scored a complete victory for our client in high-stakes arbitration. Our client, a multinational corporation in the medical field, was accused of infringing a number of its competitor's patents. In addition to the direct product competition at the heart of the dispute, the potential damages were well into the nine-figure range. The dispute was subject to an arbitration clause, and a three arbitrator panel was selected. After the parties conducted fact and expert discovery, they proceeded to a two-week evidentiary hearing. Our client prevailed on either non-infringement or invalidity on every patent, an unusually complete victory for one side in the arbitration context.

Forgent Networks, Inc v. Echostar Communications Corporation, et al.
(Eastern District of Texas). Obtained defense jury verdict for EchoStar in patent lawsuit brought by Forgent against essentially the entire cable and satellite television industry, including EchoStar, DIRECTV, Comcast, Cable One, Time Warner, Charter, and Cox, as well as Motorola, Digeo, and Scientific-Atlanta, in Tyler, Texas. The case involved patents allegedly directed to DVRs. Forgent alleged that it invented the DVR in 1991. All defendants other than EchoStar settled shortly before trial, leaving EchoStar as the sole defendant. In May 2007, after approximately an hour of deliberations, an eight-person jury found all of the asserted claims invalid as anticipated, obvious, and lacking an adequate written description. EchoStar did not contest infringement at trial and argued only invalidity. We believe this is only the second defense jury verdict in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas.

Acacia Media Technologies Corp. v. Comcast Corp., et al.
(Northern District of California).  Represented EchoStar, the owner of the DISH Network, in a closely-watched patent infringement case involving a number of patents purportedly relating to digital media transmission. EchoStar was one of multiple defendants in this multi-district patent infringement action involving distributed audio/video information and whether major U.S. satellite and cable television providers infringe Acacia patents on video-on-demand (streaming video) technology. We assumed a leadership position in developing the defenses against these patents, which, if afforded the broad construction assigned to them by the patentees, could have far-reaching effects on numerous forms of digital transmission used in many different industries. After multiple rounds of claim construction proceedings, defendants prevailed on summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of all patents, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in 2010.

Ronald A. Katz Technology L.P. v. American Electric Power, et al.
Represented multiple defendants in patent case alleging infringement of large portfolio of interactive telephone/computer interface patents. Obtained order from Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation consolidating case with over 20 other actions, and transferring it from Eastern District of Texas to Central District of California. The case is ongoing, but a series of claim construction and summary judgment rulings have already substantially reduced the risks to our clients.


  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2019 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2019 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.