Cravath, Swaine & Moore

I'll verify the firm's profile and IP litigation practice details before drafting.

Let me verify firm size, offices, and the outcomes of the tracked solar and PTAB matters.

Let me confirm the Unified Patents matters and Cravath's office footprint/size.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP is an elite New York-headquartered BigLaw firm, based at Two Manhattan West in New York, with a deliberately narrow office footprint historically limited to New York plus a small London office. Its IP group is small relative to peer patent practices but sits inside one of the most profitable partnership structures in the profession (Cravath is a fixture at or near the top of AmLaw profitability rankings, with lockstep partner compensation and a no-lateral tradition). Caveat: I could not verify current headcount, revenue, or a specific 2025 AmLaw rank in this review, so those figures should be confirmed against the AmLaw 100 tables before publication.

IP litigation specialty. Cravath's own practice description and IAM Patent 1000 (gold-ranked practice) place it in top-end, bet-the-company disputes rather than volume prosecution, spanning life sciences, technology, media and energy. Its tracked docket is concentrated in three areas: (1) renewables/energy — the First Solar TOPCon campaign and solar-tracker work for Southern Power/Deriva Energy, which Legal 500 singles out as the team's defining sector; (2) pharma/biotech and medical devices — Regeneron v. Amgen, the Halozyme matters (MDASE hyaluronidase patents), Abiomed blood-pump litigation, and Amgen/Humira biosimilar work; and (3) consumer electronics and home automation — One-E-Way v. Apple and the long-running Alarm.com/ADT matters. Note that the current docket is not a standards-essential/Wi-Fi practice; the firm's Wi-Fi/SEP experience (Qualcomm) is historical and comes from partner bios rather than recent appearances.

Side preference. Defense-oriented. The tracked data shows 8 defendant-side appearances against 1 plaintiff-side. That is consistent with the client mix: Amgen, Apple, Halozyme, First Solar (in the Unified Patents and Mundra matters), and Abiomed as defendants. Cravath is not an NPE/PAE prosecution shop — the opposite, in fact: the One-E-Way v. Apple and Unified Patents matters are defenses against non-practicing-entity or IPR challenges. The plaintiff side is real but secondary, and typically for operating companies enforcing their own portfolios (First Solar as plaintiff against Canadian Solar; Illumina as plaintiff against Element Biosciences, per Legal 500).

Notable matters. The most prominent tracked engagements are the First Solar TOPCon matters: Cravath acts as lead counsel for First Solar as plaintiff in Delaware actions against JinkoSolar, Canadian Solar and Mundra Solar, and as defense counsel in the related Unified Patents and Mundra challenges. First Solar announced that the USPTO Director denied institution of three IPR petitions (JinkoSolar Nov. 20, Mundra Dec. 11, Canadian Solar Dec. 18, 2025), leaving the patents intact; First Solar filed an ITC complaint on Feb. 24, 2026, and Canadian Solar's public filings state the Delaware trial is set for March 2028. Other verified results include Alarm.com v. Vivint (eight years, 35+ patents, 100+ claims eliminated in PTAB decisions, resolved with a long-term license), Abiomed v. WhiteSwell (four IPR and one PGR victories), and Hummel's Delaware jury verdict for Amgen against Sanofi/Regeneron on PCSK9 cholesterol-antibody patents (Cravath's tracked role in Regeneron v. Amgen was antitrust/counterclaim counsel, so that win should be attributed carefully).

PTAB/IPR and practice leaders. Cravath has a genuine PTAB bench rather than a volume filer: co-chair David J. Kappos is the former USPTO Director (2009–2013) who implemented the AIA, and Sharonmoyee Goswami routinely practices before the PTAB and Federal Circuit. The tracked Unified Patents matters confirm it regularly defends patent owners in IPR proceedings and parallel appeals. No public report I found quantifies the firm's IPR filing volume, so any scale metric should be omitted or sourced separately. Practice leaders are Keith R. Hummel (co-chair, IP; ranked Band 3 Chambers USA, IAM Patent 1000) and Kappos (co-chair; Band 1 Chambers USA for patent transactional work), with Goswami as the rising litigation/PTAB name. Richard W. Clary and Timothy G. Cameron also appear in our tracked data; David Marriott left the firm in 2025 (per Legal 500), so older directory profiles naming him should be treated as stale.