Source: https://www.kirkland.com/lawyers/h/hubbard-ryan-m
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:07:00+00:00

Document:
Ryan Hubbard is an intellectual property partner in Kirkland & Ellis LLP’s Chicago office. He concentrates on complex patent litigation in federal court across the country and in inter partes review proceedings before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Ryan has experience with a variety of hardware and software technologies including cryptography and network devices, database and storage software, semiconductor fabrication and testing, digital video and videoconferencing, GPS devices, commercial refrigeration, internet advertising, wireless devices, automotive networks and sensors, and digital picture frames. Ryan has also advised clients regarding cyber-security and data breaches.
Ryan is actively involved in pro bono matters.
Intellectual Ventures v. JP Morgan Chase (SDNY 2013), SunTrust Banks (N.D. Ga. 2013), First National Bank of Omaha (D. Neb. 2013), BBVA Compass (N.D. Ala. 2013), Commerce Bancshares (W.D. Mo. 2013), US Bancorp (D. Minn. 2013), Huntington Bancshares (S.D. Ohio 2013), Capital One (D. Md. 2013), Citibank (SDNY 2014), Kemper (E.D. Tex. 2015) — Representing multiple entities in multi-patent infringement litigation involving online banking and security technology. W summary judgment of noninfringement in JP Morgan Chase and Citibank litigations; appeal pending. All other litigations stayed.
PersonalWeb v. IBM Corporation, (N.D. Cal. 2012) — Represented IBM in defense of patent infringement claims related to data archiving and de-duplication patents. Argued and won motion to exclude various claims and legal theories asserted by PersonalWeb and Case resolved favorably for IBM shortly thereafter.
Stragent, LLC v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., (E.D. Tex. 2010) — Represented Freescale against allegations of infringing three patents generally relating to Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) protocols in network processors.
Auburn University v. IBM Corporation, (M.D. Ala. 2009) — Represented IBM in defense of patent infringement, correction of inventorship and various state law claims relating to predictive testing processes for semiconductor devices. IBM brought motions to dismiss various common law counts, which were granted in June 2010 (decision at 2010 WL 2292422). Court granted IBM’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of all claims.
Trial Lawyer's Guide to Post Grant Patent Proceedings, LEXISNEXIS IP LAW & STRATEGY SERIES (2018 Edition), with Kenneth R. Adamo, Eugene Goryunov, David W. Higer, and Brent P. Ray.
The PTAB Strikes Back (analysis of remands of appeals from the Federal Circuit, Part 2), INTELL. PROP. MAG. 36–39 (Dec. 2018–Jan. 2019), with Kenneth R. Adamo, Eugene Goryunov, Joel Merkin, and Bruce H. Ratain.
Reasons for Remand (analysis of remands of appeals from the Federal Circuit, Part 1), INTELL. PROP. MAG. 43–44 (Nov. 2018), with Kenneth R. Adamo, Eugene Goryunov, Joel Merkin, and Bruce H. Ratain.
Three Years on from Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., Where Are We Now?, PHARMA. PATENT ANALYST (Aug. 2018), with Kenneth R. Adamo, Eugene Goryunov, and Sarah M. Craig.
April Showers Bring Supreme Court Flowers: What’s Next for the PTAB After Oil States and SAS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MAGAZINE 51–54 (June 2018), with Kenneth R. Adamo, Eugene Goryunov, David W. Higer, and Brent P. Ray.
Chapter 56. Checklist of Patent Causes of Action and Defenses (With Sample Pleadings), in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COUNSELING AND LITIGATION 56-1 (Horwitz, L. & Horwitz E. eds., 2015) with Kenneth R. Adamo and Brent P. Ray.
The Price of a Stay: Prior Art Estoppel, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MAGAZINE 61–64 (Oct. 2014), with Kenneth R. Adamo, David W. Higer and Eugene Goryunov.
An Appeal-ing Proposition, THE PATENT LAWYER 35–39 (Sept.–Oct. 2014), with Kenneth Adamo, David Higer, and Eugene Goryunov.
Down the Rabbit Hole (a review of the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l), THE PATENT LAWYER 19–21 (Sept.–Oct. 2014), with Kenneth Adamo, David Higer, and Eugene Goryunov.
The U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies “Exceptional” Cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and the Appellate Standard of Review, LEXOLOGY (May 13, 2014), with Kenneth Adamo, David Higer, and Eugene Goryunov.
The U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies “Exceptional” Cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and the Appellate Standard of Review, KIRKLAND ALERT (May 2014), with Kenneth Adamo, David Higer, and Eugene Goryunov.
Lighting Rod: Supreme Court Likely (a review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Co.), INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MAGAZINE 72–74 (Apr. 2014), with Kenneth Adamo, David Higer, and Eugene Goryunov.
En Banc Federal Circuit Confirms Claim Construction is Reviewed De Novo on Appeal, KIRKLAND ALERT (Feb. 2014), with Kenneth Adamo, David Higer, and Eugene Goryunov.
Dual-Use Devices and the Workplace, Spring Symposium: Legal Problems in Data Management: IT & Privacy at the Forefront at The John Marshall Law School, Chicago, IL, Apr. 10, 2015.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 285
 § 285
 v.