Ryan is an intellectual property litigator, focusing on complex patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret matters involving a wide range of technologies including telecommunications, navigation, smartphones, smartwatches, enterprise computer software and athletic apparel. He has significant experience in all stages of litigation in federal courts throughout the country as plaintiff and defendant, including trials and appeals, as well as representing petitioners during inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Ryan has defended some of the world’s largest companies to protect popular products from alleged patent infringement. Representing plaintiffs in patent infringement actions, Ryan has also helped secure over $1 billion in verdicts and settlements for his clients. In addition to trial experience, Ryan has briefed and argued intellectual property disputes to appellate courts. Throughout his career, Ryan has successfully represented numerous prominent clients in high-stakes litigation such as Sprint, Garmin and Nike, among others.
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 and individuals seeking asylum in the United States.
Representative Matters
Sprint v. CSC Holdings, LLC (D. Del.)—Ryan was trial counsel for Sprint in a patent infringement action involving a portfolio of voice-over-packet (VOP) patents. The case settled on favorable terms for Sprint just before a jury was selected.
Sprint v. Mediacom Communications Corp. (D. Del.)—Ryan was trial counsel for Sprint in a patent infringement action involving a portfolio of VOP patents. The case settled on favorable terms for Sprint just prior to trial.
Sprint v. WideOpenWest, Inc. (D. Del.)—Ryan was trial counsel for Sprint in a patent infringement action involving a portfolio of VOP patents. The case settled on favorable terms for Sprint days before trial and shortly after Ryan prevailed on a motion finding the defendant waived the attorney-client privilege, requiring defendant to produce documents showing pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents, and permitting willful infringement to be tried to the jury.
Ragan v. Berkshire Hathaway Automotive, Inc. (W.D. Mo. and S.D. Tex.)—Ryan is trial and appellate counsel for Berkshire Hathaway Automotive in two cases involving copyright and trade secret claims. Ryan won a dispositive motion finding plaintiff’s copyright invalid and argued the copyrightability issue on appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ongoing.
Sprint v. Charter Communications and Bright House Networks (D. Del. and D. Kan.)—Ryan was trial counsel for Sprint in two related cases involving patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims. Cases favorably settled.
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.)—Represented Garmin in a patent infringement action involving marine navigation technology. Favorable settlement.
Burris Company, Inc. v. Garmin International, Inc. (D. Ore.)—Represented Garmin in patent litigation relating to auto-ranging bow sight. Defeated a motion for preliminary injunction after cross-examining plaintiff’s expert witness. Asserted claims were found invalid by the PTAB.
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.
FacetoFace Biometrics, Inc. (E.D. Mo.)—Represented one of the world’s leading technology companies in a patent infringement case involving smartphone technologies. Ryan won an early dispositive motion finding all asserted claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming an abstract idea.
Flick Intelligence LLC (W.D. Tex.) — Represented one of the world’s leading technology companies in a patent infringement case involving augmented reality. Favorably settled.
Chian Chiu Li (N.D. Cal.) —Represent one of the world’s leading technology companies in a patent infringement case involving gaze detection on mobile devices. Ongoing.
LoganTree, LP (W.D. Tex. and N.D. Ca.)—Represent one of the world’s leading technology companies in a patent infringement case involving smartwatch technologies. Ongoing.
KT Imaging, LLC (W.D. Tex.)—Represented one of the world’s leading technology companies in a patent infringement case involving smartphone cameras. Favorably settled.
Traxcell Technologies, LLC (W.D. Tex. and N.D. Ca.)—Represented one of the world’s leading technology companies in a patent infringement case involving location-based services. Favorably settled.
NewFlux LLC v. Best Buy Co., Inc. (W.D. Tex.)—Represented Best Buy in a patent infringement case involving tablet accessories. Favorably settled.
Princeps Interface Technologies LLC (D. Del. and N.D. Ca.)—Represented one of the world’s leading technology companies in a patent infringement case. Favorably settled.
WiNet Labs LLC (N.D. Cal.)—Represented one of the world’s leading technology companies in a patent infringement case involving smartphone technologies. Favorably settled.
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.
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.