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