Ryan’s practice focuses on complex patent and copyright litigation involving a wide range of sophisticated technologies including telecommunications, navigation, smartwatches, enterprise computer software and athletic apparel. He has experience in all stages of litigation in federal courts throughout the country, including trials and appeals, as well as representing petitioners during inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Throughout his career, Ryan has successfully represented numerous prominent clients in high-stakes litigation such as Sprint, Garmin and Nike, among others.
Ryan’s jury trial experience includes helping secure the second largest patent verdict in the United States in 2017. He developed the willful infringement allegations in a 12-patent case through discovery, including dozens of fact and expert depositions; briefed summary judgment and Markman hearing; and handled multiple witnesses at trial in the U.S. District Court in the District of Kansas, including cross-examination of the defendant’s technical expert on invalidity under the written description requirement. 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. Ryan successfully briefed the written description challenge on appeal, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s findings on validity and upheld the full damages award.
Ryan enjoys working with clients to understand the unique business interests involved in each case and developing litigation strategies that further those interests. His creative and strategic approach has resulted in widespread favorable results for his clients at all stages—on appeal, at trial, on summary judgment, Markman rulings and IPR final written decisions.
Ryan is a member of the firm’s Search Committee and active participant in the firm’s pro bono program, where he represents parents and children involved in legal proceedings in Missouri state courts.
Sprint v. Time Warner Cable (D. Kan.)—Ryan was trial counsel for Sprint in a patent infringement action involving a portfolio of voice-over-packet (VOP) patents. Time Warner was represented by teams from Latham & Watkins and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer. After a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict on behalf of Sprint, finding Time Warner Cable willfully infringed all asserted claims, and awarded Sprint its full damages ask of $139.8 million. This is the largest-ever patent verdict in the state of Kansas. Ryan also briefed the written description issue on appeal, where the Federal Circuit affirmed the complete jury verdict. Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., et al., No. 2017-2247, 2018 WL 6266319, Fed. Cir. (November, 30, 2018).
Sprint v. Comcast Cable Communications (D. Kan.)—Represented Sprint in a patent infringement action involving a portfolio of voice-over-packet patents through discovery, claim construction, summary judgment and pretrial. After favorable rulings on summary judgment and privilege waiver, the matter settled for a publicly reported $350 million on the eve of trial.
Sprint v. Cox Communications (D. Del.)—Represented Sprint in a patent infringement action involving a portfolio of voice-over-packet patents through discovery, claim construction, summary judgment and pretrial. The matter was favorably settled on the eve of trial.
Garmin Switzerland GmbH v. Navico, and C-MAP (D. Kan.)— Represented Garmin in a patent infringement and trademark infringement action involving marine navigation technology. Favorable settlement.
Garmin Switzerland GmbH v. FLIR Maritime US, Inc. (D. Ore.)— Represent Garmin in a patent infringement action involving marine navigation technology. Ongoing.
Burris Company, Inc. v. Garmin International, Inc. (D. Ore.)— Represent Garmin in patent litigation relating to auto-ranging bow sight. Ongoing.
Comcast v. Sprint Communications (D. Del.)—Trial counsel for Sprint in a patent infringement action in the District of Delaware wherein Sprint asserted two patents related to fiber optical SONET networks. Comcast was represented by Davis Polk and Winston Strawn. After a one-week jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in Sprint’s favor on all issues, finding all claims infringed by all accused networks, and awarded Sprint $27.6 million, the full amount of damages requested by Sprint. Vacated on appeal. Ryan also prepared summary judgment briefs invalidating asserted counterclaims in U.S. Patent No. 6,873,694.
Valencell, LLC—Represented one of the world’s leading technology companies in a patent infringement case involving smartwatch technologies. Coordinated with related inter partes review proceedings, which were largely successful. Case settled shortly thereafter.
Masa, LLC—Represented one of the world’s leading technology companies in a patent infringement case involving smartwatch technologies. Represented petitioner during related inter partes review proceeding. PTAB invalidated all asserted claims on all petitioned grounds. Prepared appeal briefing, where the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed invalidity decision.
Sprint v. Comcast (E.D. Penn.)—Counsel for Sprint in a patent litigation involving video-on-demand technologies.
Sprint v. Charter Communications, Frontier Communications, Mediacom, WideOpenWest, Atlantic Broadband, TPG Global, and Altice USA (D. Del.)—Represent Sprint in patent infringement actions involving a portfolio of voice-over-packet patents. Ongoing.
Sprint v. Charter Communications and Altice USA (D. Del.)—Counsel for Sprint in a patent litigation involving video-on-demand technologies. Ongoing.
McDavid, Inc. v. Nike USA, Inc. (N.D. Ill.)—Counsel for Nike in a patent litigation relating to padded athletic apparel. Prepared summary judgment briefs invalidating all asserted claims in reissue patents RE42,689 and RE43,441. Prepared petition for inter partes review. Favorably settled.
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.