Bryan brings nearly 25 years of intellectual property litigation experience to the Squire Patton Boggs Intellectual Property & Technology Practice Group’s US litigation practice, including numerous representations of parties in Section 337 investigations at the US International Trade Commission.

Bryan has also appeared in numerous US district courts and before arbitration panels in IP disputes. His litigation experience extends to a diverse array of technologies, including semiconductors, lasers, wireless communications, batteries, electronic lighting, medical devices and therapies, and fitness and rehabilitation equipment. Bryan has been involved in many trials, Markman hearings, motion hearings and appeals in his 25 years of practicing law.

As a veteran of both district court and Section 337 litigation, Bryan brings a rare combination of experience and perspective to his client service. Bryan’s longstanding involvement in Section 337 litigation dates from 1991, and includes service as President of the Bar Association dedicated to Section 337 litigation (the ITC Trial Lawyers Association) in 2000-01 and his continuous and ongoing service as a member of the organization’s Executive Committee. He has also presented and published extensively on topics related to Section 337 litigation.

Award Mouse thought multimedia interface book medal screen monitor

Section 337 Litigation 

  • Certain Stainless Steel Products, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same, and Certain Products Containing Same (337-TA-933) (2015) (Essex). Represented major US metals distributor in a trade secrets-based investigation resulting in termination of distributor from the investigation and no remedy issued against it.
  • Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps and Products Containing Same and Components Thereof (337-TA-872) (2014) (Shaw). Represented lighting distribution respondents in petition phase of patent-based investigation, which resulted in ITC reversing ALJ’s violation finding. Affirmed on appeal. 
  • Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-830) (2013) (Pender). Represented largest US CFL distributor in patent-based investigation involving dimmable lighting circuitry resulting in ALJ finding of no violation on multiple grounds, including lack of domestic industry and non-infringement. Case later settled on favorable terms.
  • Certain Pool Cues With Self-Aligning Joint Assemblies (337-TA-536) (2005) (Harris). Represented Taiwanese respondent and seven US importers in a patent-based investigation. The ITC found no violation after affirming ALJ’s grant of summary determination of non-infringement.

Federal Court IP Litigation 

  • Represented plaintiff in two patent infringement disputes involving radio frequency audience response systems.
  • Represented heavy equipment producer in appeal of attorney fees award awarded to it as defendant in patent infringement litigation involving hydraulic engine components.
  • Represented Ohio-based lighting products company in ICC arbitration of a patent license dispute.
  • Represented a distributor and marketer of home fitness products on patent infringement claims in two, separate suits, including one relating to the company’s most popular product, an abdominal workout system.
  • Represented a producer of high powered lasers in two patent infringement cases against California laser makers.
  • Represented defendant in trademark infringement action relating to mortgage lending services.
  • Represented developers and marketers of audience response systems in seeking declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement against competitor.
  • Represented plaintiff in patent and trade dress infringement suit involving cosmetic and therapeutic compositions for enhancing tissue elasticity.


  • Stanford University, J.D., 1988
  • University of Oxford, M.A., 1986
  • Brown University, B.A., magna cum laude, Marshall Scholar, Phi Beta Kappa, 1983


  • Ohio, 2004
  • California, 1988
  • District of Columbia, 1991


  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Ct. of App., Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Ct. of App., Fourth Circuit
  • U.S. Ct. of App., Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. Ct. of App., Tenth Circuit
  • U.S. Ct. of App., District of Columbia Circuit
  • U.S. Ct. of International Trade
  • U.S. Ct. of Federal Claims
  • U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of Columbia
  • U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of Maryland
  • U.S. Dist. Ct., E. Dist. of Michigan
  • U.S. Dist. Ct., N. Dist. of Ohio
  • U.S. Dist. Ct., S. Dist. of Ohio
  • U.S. Dist. Ct., N. Dist. of California
  • U.S. Dist. Ct., C. Dist. of California

{{}} {{insights.source}} {{insights.type}}
{{blog.title}} {{blog.source}}

  • Author, “A Patent Showdown Brewing Between Fed. Circ., High Court,” Law360, October 25, 2017.

Award Mouse thought multimedia interface book medal screen monitor