Ryan represents businesses and individuals in high-stakes disputes and litigation. As an attorney at Keker, Van Nest & Peters, Ryan has represented clients in matters involving intellectual property, internet law, consumer protection, competition, breach of contract, and securities fraud. He previously served as in-house product counsel for Google where he advised Google Maps leadership on global legal issues involving privacy, emerging regulation, competition, intellectual property, and content moderation.
Ryan served as a law clerk to Judge Christopher F. Droney of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Judge John Z. Lee of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Prior to his legal career, Ryan co-founded the marketing-technology platform CreativeX and was a Google product marketing manager.
In addition to his legal practice, Ryan serves on the board of directors for the AIDS Legal Referral Panel, which provides legal services to those living with HIV/AIDS in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Duncan, et al v. Sutter Health, et al.
We are representing Sutter Health affiliates against claims of violating California's Insurance Fraud Prevention Act in a case related to charges for health care services.
Plaintiff v. Software Startup
We successfully defended a startup in a trade secret case alleging that it used proprietary information to develop software that would compete with its much larger incumbent rival, fending off a preliminary injunction that would have forced our client to remove its product from the market just as it was launching.
District 16 v. Sutter Health
We are representing Sutter Health affiliates in class action litigation related to charges for health care services.
Promptu v. Comcast Cable Communications
In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, we successfully defended Comcast against patent infringement and state-law contract and tort claims brought by Promptu targeting Comcast’s voice recognition and control technology. Following a Markman hearing that resulted in favorable claim constructions across the board, we secured a stipulation of non-infringement and dismissal with prejudice of the remaining claims.
Evaluating the “Imminence” of a Cyber Attack for Purposes of Anticipatory Self-Defense, 117 Colum. Law Rev. 399 (2017)