Ryan’s practice focuses on complex patent and copyright litigation involving a wide range of sophisticated technologies including telecommunications, navigation, smart watches, enterprise computer software and athletic apparel. His experience ranges from preparing and responding to dispositive motions to managing all aspects of fact and expert discovery and trial.
Ryan has prepared multiple claim construction briefs, including substantial contributions to one in which more than 100 claim terms across twelve patents were at issue. He has conducted and defended dozens of fact and expert depositions, including depositions of executives at Fortune 100 companies, inventors, and third parties. Ryan has also taken and defended corporate depositions on infringement and damages issues.
Ryan also has experience presenting and cross-examining witnesses at trial in federal court. He recently cross-examined defendants’ technical expert on invalidity under the written description requirement at a high-stakes patent trial in the District of Kansas. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ryan’s client for the full damages request of $139.8 million, finding all five asserted patents valid and willfully infringed. In addition to litigation, Ryan also has experience representing several petitioners during inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board.
While Ryan was in law school, he worked as a research assistant on the intellectual property rights for human genes and collected data for the simulation of intellectual property frameworks. Before attending law school, he studied the neuropsychological effects of alcohol in rodents, co-authored an article appearing in the May 2003 edition of Alcoholism and worked as a medical assistant to a general family practice physician.
Sprint Communications Co. L.P. v. Time Warner Cable Inc. (D. Kan.) – Represent Sprint in patent infringement action involving a portfolio of voice-over-packet patents through discovery and at trial. Presented willful infringement witness and cross-examined defendants’ invalidity expert witness at trial. The jury found all asserted claims willfully infringed and not invalid. The jury awarded Sprint its entire request of $139.8 million in damages.
Sprint Communications Co. L.P. v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC (D. Kan.) – Represent Sprint in patent infringement action involving a portfolio of voice-over-packet patents through discovery, claim construction, summary judgment and pretrial.
Garmin Switzerland GmbH v. Navico, C-MAP, and FLIR Maritime US, Inc. (D. Kan.) – Represent Garmin in patent infringement and trademark infringement action involving marine navigation technology.
Comcast v. Sprint Communications (D. Del. and E.D. Penn.) – Counsel for Sprint in patent litigation involving various telecommunications technologies. Prepared summary judgment briefs invalidating asserted claims in U.S. Patent No. 6,873,694. Represented Sprint at jury trial in the District of Delaware.
McDavid, Inc. v. Nike USA, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) – Counsel for Nike in patent litigation relating to padded athletic apparel. Prepared summary judgment briefs invalidating all asserted claims in reissue patents RE42,689 and RE43,441.
Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc. (D. Nev.) – Counsel for Rimini Street in copyright litigation related to third party maintenance of enterprise software.
Child Protect v. Virgin Mobile (E.D. Tex.) – Counsel for Virgin Mobile in patent litigation relating to location-based services technology.