Ryan Malloy is a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group whose practice focuses on patent and copyright litigation. He has represented patent owners and accused infringers in some of the biggest cases in the history of IP litigation.
Mr. Malloy is experienced with high-stakes patent litigation in U.S. district courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and Japanese courts.
His cases have spanned a wide range of technologies, including semiconductor fabrication, video coding, network security, consumer electronics, optoelectronics, internet services, video games, virtual reality, mechanical devices, and medical devices.
Clients rely on Mr. Malloy’s guidance in matters involving cutting-edge technologies. He makes difficult technological concepts understandable to judges and juries. He views matters from the perspective of his clients to provide sound strategic advice on discovery management and case resolution.
Mr. Malloy has a strong background in technology. He earned the highest undergraduate honor of the University of Florida’s Electrical and Computer Engineering Department and the highest GPA in the master’s program of Georgia Tech’s Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. He also taught classes and conducted ground-breaking nanoscience research in the Ph.D. program of UC Berkeley’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences.
Mr. Malloy earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School.
Certain Semiconductor Lithography Systems and Components Thereof(International Trade Commission, 337-TA-1137). Represented Nikon respondents in patent investigation involving photolithography systems.
Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof and Vehicles Containing Same(International Trade Commission, 337-TA-984). Represented Honda and Fujitsu Ten respondents in patent investigation involving graphics chips.
Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Methods of Making Same and Products Containing Same(International Trade Commission, 337-TA-855). Represented complainant Hitachi Metals, Ltd. in patent investigation involving rare-earth magnets.
Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof(International Trade Commission, 337-TA-918). Represented International Laser Group in patent investigation brought by Canon. The case settled on favorable terms, pursuant to which ILG may continue to sell its remanufactured toner cartridges in the U.S.
McRo v. Square Enix et al.(Central District of California). Represent video-game companies Square Enix and Konami in patent litigation involving lip-sync animation.
ICHL v. Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc.(Eastern District of Texas). Obtained judgment of non-infringement for Mitsubishi in patent litigation involving heat sink assemblies in televisions.
Cheetah Omni v. Samsung, et al. (Eastern District of Texas). Represented Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Inc. in a patent case involving DLP televisions. Judgment was entered in Mitsubishi’s favor following a favorable claim construction and affirmed by Federal Circuit on appeal.
Walker Digital v. Capital One (Eastern District of Virginia). Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement for Capital One shortly after discovery commenced in patent litigation involving online credit-card application systems. Obtained Federal Circuit affirmance.
Multimedia Patent Trust v. Disney, et al.(Southern District of California). Obtained favorable settlements for several large media and entertainment companies in patent litigation involving video compression.
Palomar Medical Technologies v. Candela Corp. & Syneron Inc.(District of Massachusetts). Obtained favorable settlements for industry-leading laser hair–removal companies in patent litigation.
Studio Plaintiffs v. Nissim Corp.(Southern District of Florida). Obtained favorable settlements for Fox, MGM, Paramount, and Universal in patent litigation involving video discs.
Housing Works v. County of Los Angeles(Central District of California). Represent indigent individuals with mental disabilities and organizations that support them in litigation aimed at making LA County’s General Relief welfare program more accessible.
Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.