Andrew C. Ryan

Senior Counsel

Overview
Credentials
Experience
Insights

Print
PDF
Share this page

Andrew Ryan is Senior Counsel at Bartko Pavia in the Litigation Practice. Andrew is a seasoned litigation attorney with over twenty years of experience handling a broad range of intellectual property matters with an emphasis on patent disputes. He also has significant experience in adversarial proceedings before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He regularly represents clients in complex PTAB proceedings and co-pending district court litigation. Andrew represents clients in a wide range of industries, including pharmaceuticals, software and internet technologies, clean energy technologies, wireless and networking technologies, smartphones, digital camera design and operation, semiconductors, printer technologies, image sensors, LEDs, and biometric security systems. Andrew’s experience also includes general intellectual property counseling and monetization, patent prosecution and licensing, and trade secret matters. Additionally, he has experience counseling and working for startup companies, including on capitalization, intellectual property protection and enforcement, branding, and other business strategies. Prior to joining Bartko Pavia, Andrew was a partner at a leading intellectual property firm where he chaired the Post-Grant Practice Group.

Credentials

Education

JD - Western New England University School of Law
BS - Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Allied Health Sciences

Bar Admissions

State Bar of Massachusetts
State Bar of Connecticut Connecticut
U.S Patent and Trademark Office (Registered Patent Attorney)

Court Admissions

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Recognitions

Named as Super Lawyer by Thompson Reuters, Intellectual Property, Connecticut, 2017-2022.

Experience

Nikon Metrology et al. v. Faro Technologies, (D. MA)

Represented defendant Faro Technologies in a complex patent and antitrust case involving 3D laser scanning technology. Secured a jury verdict rendering the asserted patent invalid and successfully defended claim brought by Nikon for $18.3 million in infringement damages.

GSK Smith Kline Beecham v. Mutual Pharmaceutical, (ED PA).

Represented defendant generic drug company in pharmaceutical patent litigation suit. Filed anti-trust and declaratory judgment counterclaims on behalf of client. Resulted in plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of suit with prejudice and settlement in favor of client.

Veto Pro Pac LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and Custom LeatherCraft, Manufacturing Co., Inc., (D. Conn.).

Represented defendant Home Depot in patent infringement suit. Obtained favorable settlement with no financial compensation to plaintiff.

Pfizer, Inc. v. Actavis Group hf., (D. Del.).

Represented the generic drug manufacturer in litigation stemming from ANDA filing. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement of the patent issues during discovery.

OmegaFlex, Inc. v. Parker Hannifin Corporation, (D. MA).

Represented plaintiff in patent infringement suit involving flexible metal piping technology. After two jury trials and an appeal to the Federal Circuit, judgment was entered in favor of our client, awarding injunctive relief as well as substantial damages.

G&M Media Packaging v. Bruggemen & Desouter, et al., (ND OH).

Represented client in media packaging industry in defense of claims of trade dress and design patent infringement. Partially prevailed on summary judgment motion and then negotiated favorable settlement short of trial.

Warner Chilcott Laboratories, et al. v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., et al., (D. NJ).

Represented generic pharmaceutical company in defense of ANDA patent suit. Negotiated favorable settlement.

Tech Spray, L.P. v. Micro Care Corporation, (ED TX).

Represented defendant in patent infringement suit involving critical, precision cleaning technology. Successfully implead third party defendant and negotiated favorable settlement.