Ryan C. Richardson is a director in Sterne Kessler's Electronics and Trial & Appellate Practice Groups. Ryan's practice focuses on post-grant proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), as well as U.S. district court litigation and International Trade Commission (ITC) litigation. Ryan has handled dozens of contested cases before the PTAB involving technologies ranging from semiconductor fabrication and geographic information systems, to wireless communications. He is experienced in representing both patent owners and petitioners. Ryan also regularly represents both Complainants and Respondents across a wide range of technologies in Section 337 investigations before the ITC. He is an experienced litigator who has examined witnesses at trial, presented at Markman hearings, and tried cases before the PTAB. Further, Ryan has significant capabilities in the preparation and prosecution of U.S. and foreign patent applications for a wide range of entities from emerging growth companies to large multi-national corporations.
Ryan also specializes in a variety of Standard Essential Patent (SEP) related issues ranging from procurement to litigation, and also including SEP licensing with respect fair reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) obligations. Ryan’s SEP practice focuses on developing and applying strategies for both SEP holders and SEP implementers, as well as providing opinions relating to essentiality determinations and SEP patent pools. Ryan also speaks at industry conferences on SEP and FRAND issues.
Ryan is a co-author of "Patent Office Litigation," a two-volume set focused on post-grant proceedings under the America Invents Act published by Thomson Reuters Westlaw. This book examines how the proceedings interact with other aspects of patent procurement and enforcement, and delivers practical analysis and advice.
Ryan also has experience in various other areas of patent law including opinion drafting (infringement and validity), due diligence investigations, and technology licensing. His technical experience spans numerous disciplines including wired and wireless communications, graphics processing, digital devices, semiconductor devices, electronic circuits, digital integrated circuits and design techniques for rapid implementations of very large-scale integrated (VLSI) circuits, MOS technology and logic. He also has experience in the technical fields of optics, electrical biophysics, passive, active, reflective and emissive flat panel display technologies, and signals and systems processing.
Ryan has participated in, and now works closely with, the People to People Student Ambassador Program and the National Youth Leadership Forum on Medicine (NYLF/MED).
Ryan earned his J.D., with a focus on intellectual property law, from the University of New Hampshire School of Law, Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property. He received his B.S.E in electrical engineering, with honors, from the University of Michigan.
- ITC Investigations
- Certain Vehicle Control Systems, Vehicles Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1235 (counsel for Respondents Porsche, Volkswagen, Lamborghini, and Audi in an ITC investigation pertaining to vehicle control systems)
- Certain LED Lighting Devices, LED Power Supplies and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1081 (counsel for Respondents Feit Electric Company, Inc. in an ITC investigation pertaining to LED lighting devices, successfully secured a finding of no violation)
- Certain Road Milling Machines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1067 (counsel for Complainant Wirtgen American in an ITC investigation pertaining to road construction equipment, successfully secured a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order)
- Electrical Connectors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1043 (counsel for Complainant JST Corporation in an ITC investigation pertaining to electrical connectors)
- Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing, Inv. No. 337-TA-984 (counsel for Respondents Audi and Volkswagen in an ITC investigation pertaining to graphics technology)
- Lithium Silicate Materials and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-911 (counsel for Complainant Ivoclar Vivadent AG in an ITC investigation pertaining to lithium silicate-based dental prostheses)
- Certain Antivenom Compositions and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-903 (counsel for Respondents Laboratorios Silanes, S.A. de C.V. and Instituto Bioclon, S.A. de C.V. in an ITC investigation pertaining to snake antivenom)
- Certain Wireless Communications Base Stations and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-871 (counsel for Complainant Adaptix in an ITC investigation pertaining to 4G LTE wireless-communication technology)
- Patent Office Litigation
- Inter partes reviews of U.S. Patents No. 7,779,445 (IPR2020-00800, IPR2020-00801, and IPR2020-00802) (Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.*, technology pertained to interactive television systems) – counsel for Rovi Guides, Inc., successfully had IPRs denied institution
- Inter partes reviews of U.S. Patent No. 6,728,144 (IPR2019-01514) (Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.* v. Polaris Innovations Limited, technology pertained to semiconductor memory systems) – counsel for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., successfully secured adverse judgement against Polaris Innovations Limited
- Inter partes reviews IPR2019-01101, IPR2019-01102, IPR2019-01103, IPR2019-01105, IPR2019-01105, IPR2019-01573 (Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.* v. Carucel Investments, LP, technology pertained to mobile wireless base stations) – counsel for Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., successfully proved all challenged claims unpatentable and/or secured adverse judgement against Carucel Investments, LP
- Inter partes reviews of U.S. Patents No. 6,147,601 (IPR2016-01080 and IPR2016-00155) (Alarm.com Incorporated v. Vivint Inc.*, technology pertained to remote monitoring equipment) – counsel for Vivint Inc., successfully had IPRs denied institution
- Inter partes reviews IPR2014-00749, IPR2014-00493, IPR2015-01221 (Global Tel*Link Corporation* v. Securus Technologies, Inc., technology pertained to telecommunication systems) – counsel for Global Tel*Link Corporation, successfully proved all challenged claims unpatentable
- District Court
- Neo Wireless LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC (E.D. TN) (2022) (counsel for Defendant Volkswagen in a district court matter involving standard essential patents relating to 4G/LTE and 5G/NR networks)
- Acer, Inc. v. Volkswagen, AG and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (E.D. VA) (2021) (counsel for Defendant Volkswagen in a district court matter involving to standard essential patents relating to 4G, LTE wireless communications
- StratosAudio, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (W.D. Tex. & E.D. MI) (2020) (counsel for Defendant Volkswagen in a district court matter pertaining to media content streaming)
- HLFIP Holding, Inc. d/b/a Smart Communications IP Holdings v. York County, Pennsylvania, York County Prison, and Clair Doll, in his official capacity as York County Prison Warden (M.D. PA) (2020) (counsel for York County Defendants in a district court matter involving postal mail contraband elimination systems)
- IDEAL Industries Lighting LLC d/b/a Cree Lighting v. Vootu Inc.* (M.D. FL) (2020) (counsel for Defendant Vootu in a district court matter pertaining to LED canopy lights)
- Carucel Investments, LP v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. d/b/a Audi of America, Inc.* (N.D. Tex.) (2018) (counsel for Defendant Volkswagen in a district court matter pertaining to mobile wireless base stations)
- Federal Circuit
- Carucel Investments L.P. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Fed. Cir.) (2021) (counsel for Appellee Volkswagen in an appeal before the Federal Circuit)
- Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Kathrine K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO (Fed. Cir.) (2020) (counsel for Appellant Rovi in an appeal before the Federal Circuit, successfully secured a full reversal of unpatentability finding by the USPTO and costs awarded to Rovi)