Ryan C. Richardson is a director in Sterne Kessler’s Electronics Practice Group. Ryan is a highly respected leader in the field of intellectual property law, specializing in Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and their complex intersection with licensing, procurement, and litigation. As the Head of the SEP Practice at Sterne Kessler, Ryan combines a deep understanding of industry standards with practical strategies that help clients navigate the ever-evolving landscape of FRAND obligations and SEP-related disputes.

Ryan’s expertise spans key standardized technologies such as 4G/5G cellular communications, WiFi, ASTC, MPEG, and JEDEC standards. Ryan crafts tailored strategies for both SEP holders and implementers to protect their interests—whether enforcing patents, defending against patent assertions, negotiating licenses, or interacting with standard setting organizations (SSOs)—and help resolve conflicts with minimal business disruptions.

Ryan’s SEP expertise and strategic insights have made him a sought-after speaker at industry conferences and a go-to commentator for publications covering SEPs, policy shifts, and landmark SEP judicial decisions. His ability to connect legal expertise with practical outcomes has earned him a reputation for being a trusted advisor to clients, including multinational corporations, emerging tech companies, and industry leaders.

Beyond SEPs, Ryan has a robust practice in post-grant proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and handles complex litigation in U.S. district courts and before the International Trade Commission (ITC). Clients consistently turn to Ryan for his ability to secure favorable results in contested matters, especially in situations where multiple legal forums are involved—whether it’s the PTAB, U.S. district courts, the ITC, or foreign forums like the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

Ryan’s technical proficiency in diverse fields—including wired and wireless communications, semiconductor devices and fabrication, graphics processing, geographic information systems, electronic circuits, optics, and biophysics—enables him to navigate even the most intricate technology cases. He’s particularly skilled at managing multi-faceted disputes that span various sectors, ensuring seamless coordination between multiple proceedings, from local to international levels.

In addition to his legal practice, Ryan is deeply committed to mentoring and the development of the next generation of IP professionals. As an advisor to associates participating in the PTAB’s Legal Experience and Advancement Program (LEAP), Ryan fosters growth in the legal community by providing valuable training on PTAB proceedings, including oral argument techniques.

Ryan is also the co-author of the comprehensive two-volume work, “Patent Office Litigation,” published by Thomson Reuters Westlaw. This authoritative resource delves into post-grant proceedings under the America Invents Act, offering actionable insights and guidance for navigating patent procurement and enforcement.

  • 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)

  • J.D., Intellectual Property Law, University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law
  • B.S.E., Electrical Engineering, University of Michigan, with honors

  • District of Columbia
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • United States Patent & Trademark Office
  • Virginia

Speaking Engagement

2024 TPN North America Conference

San Francisco, CA, Hyatt Regency, October 16, 2024 3:40 PM - 4:20 PM EST

Speaking Engagement

IAM Live: SEP Summit 2024

London, Ironmongers' Hall, London, September 11, 2024 3:10 PM - 4:00 PM EDT

Speaking Engagement

IAM Live: Auto IP USA

Detroit, MI, The Westin Book Cadillac Detroit, May 2, 2024 1:50 PM - 2:40 PM EDT

Speaking Engagement

IP and Standardization for Emerging FinTech

November 30, 2023 9:35 AM - 10:05 AM EST

Webinar

Redesign and Remedy at the ITC (Nov. 2023)

Virtual, November 7, 2023 11:00 AM - 12:00 PM EST

Speaking Engagement

TPN Chairman’s Welcome Address and Closing Remarks

San Francisco, CA, Hyatt Regency San Francisco, October 11, 2023

Speaking Engagement

Advanced SEP Licensing Strategies: Addressing Challenges and Driving Innovation

San Francisco, CA, Hyatt Regency San Francisco, October 11, 2023

Webinar

Redesign and Remedy at the ITC (Oct. 2023)

Virtual, October 4, 2023 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM EST

Speaking Engagement

Reinvention of the Automotive Industry

Detroit, MI, The Westin Book Cadillac Detroit, May 4, 2023 9:05 AM - 10:15 AM EST

Webinar

Unified Patent Court (UPC) and ADR

Virtual, January 10, 2023 9:30 AM - 11:30 AM EST

Webinar

SEPs at the ITC: Important Tool or Exercise in Futility?

Virtual, December 15, 2022 11:00 AM - 12:00 PM EST

Speaking Engagement

Standard Essential Patents Could Profoundly Impact the Smart Grid: What Are SEPs and What Can You Do About Them?

Long Beach, CA, Hyatt Regency Long Beach, November 14, 2022 4:00 PM - 4:25 PM EST

Speaking Engagement

Chairman’s Welcome Address and Closing Comments

San Jose, CA, November 3, 2022 8:00 AM - 7:00 PM EST

Speaking Engagement

SEPs in an Evolving Market

San Jose, CA, November 3, 2022 4:50 PM - 5:30 PM EST

Speaking Engagement

Evolving SEP/FRAND Litigation Strategies

Virtual, September 21, 2022 10:40 AM - 11:40 AM EST

Speaking Engagement

Industry Review 2021: Automotive

Virtual, December 13, 2021 9:00 AM - 10:15 AM EST

Speaking Engagement

How SEPs and FRAND Licensing are Changing the Auto Ecosystem

Detroit, MI, Westin Book Cadillac, October 14, 2021 11:20 AM - 12:30 PM EST

Speaking Engagement

Expanding Connectivity: Licensing SEPs for the IoT

Virtual, March 22, 2021 11:35 AM - 12:35 PM EST

Speaking Engagement

Comprehensive Overview of Global SEP Landscape

Virtual, October 6, 2020 11:20 AM - 12:10 PM EST

Speaking Engagement

Technology Patent Network North America 2020

Virtual Program, March 12, 2020

Speaking Engagement

Standard Essential Patents Strategy Conference

Brussels, Belgium, Solvay Business School (Université Libre de Bruxelles), September 10, 2019 4:10 PM - 5:00 PM EST

Hosted Event

2019 Global IP Strategy Conference

Washington, DC, March 15, 2019

Speaking Engagement

Technology Patent Network NORTH AMERICA

San Francisco, CA, Hyatt Regency Hotel, February 21, 2019

Related News & Insights

From Ryan C. Richardson

Client Alert

February 12, 2025

IP Hot Topic: European Commission Suddenly Withdraws Proposed SEP Regulation

Ryan C. Richardson, Christopher R. O’Brien

In the News

November 20, 2024

RJ Reynolds Loses Early Exclusion Bid in ITC Vape IP Case

Law360

In the News

June 4, 2024

‘So many doors opening’: US firms expect boom in SEP work

Managing IP

In the News

February 23, 2024

How Automotive Counsel are Responding to Industry Changes

Managing IP

Articles

February 8, 2024

Standard Essential Patents at the PTAB: Are SEPs Faring Any Differently than Non-SEPs? Impacts and Analysis

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox Ryan C. Richardson

Reports

February 8, 2024

2023 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends - Report

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox Multiple Authors

Firm News

February 8, 2024

Award-Winning PTAB Team Publishes 2023 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends Report

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox

In the News

December 18, 2023

VW To Settle Part Of Cellular Tech Patent Fight With Neo

Law360

In the News

May 3, 2023

VW Gets PTAB To Review Patent Cited in Car Tech MDL

Law360

Articles

June 14, 2022

Navigating the Void Left by Withdrawn SEP Policy Statement

Law360 Ryan C. Richardson

In the News

June 10, 2022

Biden’s Rollback of Standard-Patent Policy Places Onus on Courts

Bloomberg Law

In the News

June 9, 2022

Feds' Patent Injunction Views Murky After Dropped Policies

Law360

In the News

April 26, 2022

Pennsylvania Prison Beats Patent Suit Over Scanning Inmate Mail

Bloomberg Law

Firm News

April 25, 2022

District Court Patent Victory in Infringement Suit

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox

In the News

April 19, 2022

Fed. Circ. Revives Rovi Patent That Comcast Got PTAB To Ax

Law360

In the News

March 31, 2022

EU Unified Patent Court Spurs Delight and Fear for Experts

Law360

In the News

March 9, 2022

Acer Ends 4G Patent Lawsuit Against Volkswagen in U.S. Court

Reuters

Reports

March 7, 2022

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox Multiple Authors

Articles

March 7, 2022

Standard Essential Patents at the PTAB: Are SEPs Faring any Differently than non-SEPs? – Impacts and Analysis

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox Ryan C. Richardson, Lauren A. Watt

Firm News

March 7, 2022

Sterne Kessler Publishes 2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends Report

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox

Articles

March 25, 2021

Navigating the SEP Landscape

Intellectual Property Magazine Multiple Authors

In the News

November 23, 2020

Volkswagen Knocks Out 2 Cellular Network Patents At PTAB

Law360

Articles

August 13, 2020

What 9th Circ. Qualcomm Licensing Ruling Means For SEPs

Law360 Multiple Authors

In the News

March 13, 2020

TPN: How many patents are actually essential?

World Intellectual Property Review

In the News

February 13, 2020

PTAB Presses Rovi To Explain Why Set-Top Tech Isn't Obvious

Law360

Articles

October 31, 2019

SEPs In The Wake Of Qualcomm: 4 Defense Issues

Law360 Multiple Authors

Publication

September 19, 2019

SEPs In The Wake Of Qualcomm: 4 Enforcement Issues

Law360 Multiple Authors

Articles

September 3, 2019

SEPs In The Wake Of Qualcomm: 4 Patenting Issues

Law360 Multiple Authors

In the News

May 21, 2019

PTAB Nixes Comcast Challenge To Rovi Patent As Redundant

Law360

In the News

May 8, 2019

Law360 Names Attys Who Moved Up The Firm Ranks In Q1 (2019)

Law360

Firm News

January 3, 2019

Sterne Kessler Elects Six New Directors

Books and Chapters

January 1, 2012

Patent Office Litigation

Thomson Reuters Westlaw Multiple Authors