Rachel Krevans

Partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP

Rachel Krevans

Rachel Krevans

Partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP

Biography

Rachel Krevans
Partner


Education

Dartmouth College (B.A., 1979)
University of California, Davis, School of Law (J.D., 1984)

Practices
Patent Litigation
Life Sciences
Information Technology
Bar Admissions

California

Clerkships

Hon. Robert Boochever, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (1984-1985)

Print PDF
Email this page
Subscribe to RSS
MoFolder

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.



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.


Patent Litigation
Life Sciences
Information Technology
Intellectual Property Litigation
Litigation
Appellate + Supreme Court
Licensing + Technology Transactions
Patent Reexaminations
IP Due Diligence
Interferences
Mobile Payments

Rachel Krevans is recommended as a leading lawyer by Chambers Global 2013, Chambers USA 2013, The International Who's Who of Life Sciences Lawyers 2013 and Patent Lawyers 2013, Best Lawyers in America 2013, Legal 500 US 2013, PLC Which lawyer? 2012 and Super Lawyers every year since 2004. Chambers USA Women in Law honored her with the 2013 "IP Lawyer of the Year" award. She has been recognized as a “Life Sciences Star” within the inaugural edition of LMG Life Sciences 2012. California Lawyer honored her in 2008 with the prestigious “California Lawyer of the Year” award in the IP category. The Daily Journal selected Ms. Krevans as one of the Top 75 Female Litigators in California from 2008-2013, and one of the Top 75 IP Litigators in California from 2010-2013. She was a member of the steering committee for The Sedona Conference Working Group on Markman Proceedings (recommendations published in 2006) and is currently participating in the Working Group on Patent Damages.


Beineke v. Kappos - Are Discovered Plants Patentable?
1/28/2013
Intellectual Property Litigation, Life Sciences, Patent Counseling + Prosecution, Patent Litigation
Client Alert
Sound the Alarm?—The Supreme Court’s Renewed Interest in Life Sciences Patents Could Create Additional Hurdles Across the Field
11/16/2012
Intellectual Property Litigation, Life Sciences, Patent Counseling + Prosecution, Patent Litigation
Client Alert
Patent Exhaustion and Self-Replicating Technologies
The Solicitor General Asks the Supreme Court to Decline Review in Bowman v. Monsanto
9/5/2012
Intellectual Property Litigation, Life Sciences, Patent Counseling + Prosecution, Patent Litigation
Client Alert
Patent Exhaustion & Self-Replicating Technologies: Supreme Court Considers Question in Seed Case with Broad Implications for Industry
Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News
8/1/2012
Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Counseling + Prosecution, Patent Litigation
Article
Patent Exhaustion and Self-Replicating Technologies: What Might the Supreme Court Say?
4/10/2012
Life Sciences, Patent Counseling + Prosecution
Client Alert
The Federal Circuit Narrows the Test for Prosecution Laches
Westlaw Journal Pharmaceutical
April 2011
Appellate + Supreme Court, Life Sciences, Patent Litigation
Article
Posted with permission of Thomson Reuters.
Recent Developments in the Law of Obviousness
The Sedona Conference Journal
Volume II, Fall 2010
Fall 2010
Intellectual Property Litigation, Litigation, Patent Litigation
Article
False Patent Marking: The Federal Circuit Provides Some Clarity
6/15/2010
Appellate + Supreme Court, Copyright, Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property Litigation, Interferences, IP Due Diligence, Litigation, Patent Counseling + Prosecution, Patent Litigation, Patent Reexaminations, Trade Secrets, Trademark, Venture Intellectual Property
Client Alert
False Patent Marking: The Next Frontier for IP Litigation
3/3/2010
Intellectual Property, Life Sciences, Litigation
Client Alert
Restoring the Balance: The Supreme Court Joins the Patent Reform Movement
9/1/2008
Article
Supreme Court Issues Groundbreaking Ruling Making It Easier to Invalidate Patents as Obvious
Longstanding Federal Circuit “Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation” Test No Longer the Exclusive Way to Show Obviousness
4/30/2007
Appellate + Supreme Court, Corporate, Intellectual Property Litigation, Interferences, IP Due Diligence, Licensing + Technology Transactions, Life Sciences, Litigation, Patent Reexaminations
Client Alert



The 14th Annual Sedona Conference® on Patent Litigation
10/10/2013
Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Litigation
Del Mar, CA
Speaking Engagement
Bifurcation in Patent Litigation
Intellectual Property Owners Association
11/8/2012
Patent Litigation
Webinar
13th Annual Sedona Conference® on Patent Litigation
10/11/2012
Patent Litigation
Del Mar, CA
Speaking Engagement
MoFo Summit for Women In-House Counsel
3/8/2012
Cavallo Point
601 Murray Circle
Sausalito, CA 94965
Seminar
Early Valuation of Damages in Patent Trials
2/9/2012
Patent Litigation, Trials
Webinar
Speaking Engagement
Navigating the Brave New Patent World
Sacramento Area Regional Technology Alliance (SARTA)
1/18/2012
Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Counseling + Prosecution, Patent Litigation
Drexel University
One Capitol Mall, Suite 260
Sacramento, CA 95814
Speaking Engagement
Early Valuation of Damages in Patent Litigation
Intellectual Property Owners Association
12/8/2011
Patent Litigation
Webinar
Joint Judicial Conference on Japan & U.S. Intellectual Property Rights
10/27/2011
Appellate + Supreme Court, Intellectual Property / Technology Transactions | Japan, Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Litigation
Hotel Okura Tokyo
Ascott Hall, Orchard Room, Heian Room
10-4, Toranomon 2-chome, Minato-ku
Tokyo 105-0001, Japan
Speaking Engagement
Legal Strategies for Navigating the Brave New Patent World
San Francisco Presentation
10/11/2011
Patent Counseling + Prosecution, Patent Litigation
Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Seminar
USC Gould School of Law 2011 Intellectual Property Institute
3/22/2011
Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Counseling + Prosecution, Patent Litigation
The Beverly Hills Hotel
9641 Sunset Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Sponsorship
LAIPLA Presents Washington in the West
1/27/2011
Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Counseling + Prosecution, Patent Litigation
Luxe Hotel, Los Angeles
11461 Sunset Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Speaking Engagement
Intellectual Property Owners Association- The i4i Case and Invalidity: What to Do Now
1/11/2011
Intellectual Property Litigation
Webinar
Protecting, Defending, and Enforcing Plant Variety Intellectual Property Rights
11/19/2010
Patent Counseling + Prosecution
University of Minnesota
Cargill Building for Microbial and
Plant Genomics
Room 105
1500 Gortner Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55108
Seminar
The Ethical Ramifications of Therasense
11/9/2010
Appellate + Supreme Court, Patent Litigation
The Catholic University of America
Columbus School of Law
Slowinski Courtroom
3600 John McCormack Road, N.E.
Washington D.C. 20036
Speaking Engagement
Looking Beyond the Numbers: A Forum Considerations for Patent Litigation Cases
9/30/2009
Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Litigation
Palo Alto, CA
Seminar

Overview
RelSci Relationships

1469

Number of Boards

2

Number of Awards

17

Relationships
RelSci Relationships are individuals Rachel Krevans likely has professional access to. A relationship does not necessarily indicate a personal connection.

Managing Partner, Europe at Morrison & Foerster LLP

Relationship likelihood: Strong

Chair & Chief Executive Partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP

Relationship likelihood: Strong

Managing Partner, Singapore at Morrison & Foerster LLP

Relationship likelihood: Strong

Managing Partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP

Relationship likelihood: Strong

Managing Partner, Washington DC Office at Morrison & Foerster LLP

Relationship likelihood: Strong

Office Managing Partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP

Relationship likelihood: Strong

Co-Chair, Diversity Strategy Committee at Morrison & Foerster LLP

Relationship likelihood: Strong

Chair, Consumer Class Actions Practice Group at Morrison & Foerster LLP

Relationship likelihood: Strong

General Counsel at Morrison & Foerster LLP

Relationship likelihood: Strong

Co-Chair, Financial Services Practice Group at Morrison & Foerster LLP

Relationship likelihood: Strong

Paths to Rachel Krevans
Potential Connections via
Relationship Science
You
Rachel Krevans
Partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP
Education
JD
Class of 1984

The University of California, Davis (also referred to as UCD, UC Davis, or Davis) is a public teaching and research university located in Davis, California just west of Sacramento. Howard and Matthew Greene named UC Davis a Public Ivy in 2001, a publicly funded university considered as providing a quality of education comparable to those of the Ivy League.

BA
Class of 1979

Founded in 1769, Dartmouth is a member of the Ivy League and consistently ranks among the world's greatest academic institutions. Dartmouth has forged a singular identity for combining its deep commitment to outstanding undergraduate liberal arts and graduate education with distinguished research and scholarship in the Arts & Sciences and its three leading professional schools—the Geisel School of Medicine, Thayer School of Engineering, and the Tuck School of Business.

Career History
Partner
Tenure Unconfirmed

Morrison & Foerster is a firm of exceptional credentials. Their name is synonymous with a commitment to client service that informs everything that they do. They are recognized throughout the world as a leader in providing cutting-edge legal advice on matters that are redefining practices and industries.

Clerk
1984 - 1985

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (in case citations, 9th Cir.) is a U.S. Federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts: District of Alaska District of Arizona Central District of California Eastern District of California Northern District of California Southern District of California District of Hawaii District of Idaho District of Montana District of Nevada District of Oregon Eastern District of Washington Western District of Washington It also has appellate jurisdiction over the following territorial courts: District of Guam District of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Non-Profit Donations & Grants

Learn how non-profit organizations benefit from RelSci
$2,500 +
2016

Founded in 1769, Dartmouth is a member of the Ivy League and consistently ranks among the world's greatest academic institutions. Dartmouth has forged a singular identity for combining its deep commitment to outstanding undergraduate liberal arts and graduate education with distinguished research and scholarship in the Arts & Sciences and its three leading professional schools—the Geisel School of Medicine, Thayer School of Engineering, and the Tuck School of Business.

$1,000 - $2,499
2016

Friends of Acadia operates as a non-profit organization. It preserves, protects, and promotes stewardship of the natural beauty, ecological vitality, and distinctive cultural resources of Acadia National Park. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Bar Harbor, ME.

$2,500 +
2015

Founded in 1769, Dartmouth is a member of the Ivy League and consistently ranks among the world's greatest academic institutions. Dartmouth has forged a singular identity for combining its deep commitment to outstanding undergraduate liberal arts and graduate education with distinguished research and scholarship in the Arts & Sciences and its three leading professional schools—the Geisel School of Medicine, Thayer School of Engineering, and the Tuck School of Business.

Political Donations
$10K
2013

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is the official campaign arm of the Democrats in the House. The DCCC is the only political committee in the country whose principal mission is to support Democratic House candidates every step of the way.

$2,500
2012

Vice Chairman at CR License LLC

Awards & Honors
2017
Best Lawyers - Best Lawyers in America
2016
Best Lawyers - Best Lawyers in America
2015
National Law Journal - 50 Most Influential Women Lawyers in America
Other Affiliations
This web site is not endorsed by, directly affiliated with, maintained, authorized, or sponsored by Rachel Krevans. The use of any trade name or trademark is for identification and reference purposes only and does not imply any association with the trademark holder. The Presence of Rachel Krevans's profile does not indicate a business or promotional relationship of any kind between RelSci and Rachel Krevans.