Bryan brings nearly 30 years of intellectual property litigation experience to our 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 30 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.

    Bryan is the co-editor of the Global IP & Technology Law blog.

    Award Mouse thought multimedia interface book medal screen monitor

    Section 337 Litigation

    • Certain Collapsible Sockets for Mobile Electronics and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1056) (2018) (Shaw). Represent non-party designer and distributor of consumer electronics accessories in remedy phase of proceeding.
    • 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.

    Other Intellectual Property Litigation

    • Represented defendant in an Eastern District of Texas patent infringement case involving a web-based video “chat” service accused of infringing method for distributing advertisements over wide area computer networks.
    • Represented industrial equipment manufacturer in parallel district court and inter partes review proceedings involving circuitry for auxiliary lighting harnesses and related Federal Circuit appeal.
    • Represented amici at Federal Circuit in en banc case involving burden of proof for amendments in IPRs before the PTAB.
    • 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 audience response system start-up 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., Marshall Scholar, 1986
    • Brown University, B.A., magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 1983


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


    • 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., N. Dist. of California
    • U.S. Dist. Ct., C. Dist. of California
    • 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., E. Dist. of Texas
    • U.S. Dist. Ct., W. Dist. of Wisconsin

    {{}} {{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