Ryan has represented patent owners and accused infringers in some of the biggest cases in the history of IP litigation. He makes difficult technological concepts understandable to judges and juries. He views matters from his clients’ perspectives and provides sound strategic advice about discovery management and case resolution.
Ryan has a strong background in technology thanks to earning 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 has taught classes and conducted groundbreaking nanoscience research in the Ph.D. program of UC Berkeley’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences.
Ryan’s 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.
Certain Semiconductor Lithography Systems and Components Thereof Represented Nikon respondents in patent investigation involving photolithography systems. (International Trade Commission, 337–TA–1137)
Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same Represented Honda and Fujitsu Ten respondents in patent investigation involving graphics chips. (International Trade Commission, 337–TA–984)
Certain Sintered Rare–Earth Magnets, Methods of Making Same, and Products Containing Same Represented complainant Hitachi Metals, Ltd. in patent investigation involving rare–earth magnets. (International Trade Commission, 337–TA–855)
Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof 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. (International Trade Commission, 337–TA–918)
McRo v. Square Enix et al. Represented video game companies Square Enix and Konami in patent litigation involving lip–sync animation. (Central District of California)
ICHL v. Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc. Obtained judgment of non–infringement for Mitsubishi in patent litigation involving heat sink assemblies in televisions. (Eastern District of Texas)
Cheetah Omni v. Samsung, et al. Represented Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Inc. in a patent case involving DLP televisions. Judgment was entered in Mitsubishi’s favor after a favorable claim construction and affirmed by Federal Circuit on appeal. (Eastern District of Texas)
Walker Digital v. Capital One Obtained a summary judgment of non–infringement for Capital One shortly after discovery commenced in patent litigation involving online credit card application systems. Also obtained Federal Circuit affirmance. (Eastern District of Virginia)
Multimedia Patent Trust v. Disney, et al. Obtained favorable settlements for several large media and entertainment companies in patent litigation involving video compression. (Southern District of California)
Palomar Medical Technologies v. Candela Corp. & Syneron Inc. Obtained favorable settlements for industry–leading laser hair removal companies in patent litigation. (District of Massachusetts)
Studio Plaintiffs v. Nissim Corp. Obtained favorable settlements for Fox, MGM, Paramount, and Universal in patent litigation involving video discs. (Southern District of Florida)
Housing Works v. County of Los Angeles Represented indigent individuals with mental disabilities and organizations that support them in litigation aimed at making LA County’s General Relief welfare program more accessible. (Central District of California)
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.