Ryan Schultz is a trial lawyer focused on assisting clients obtain value and protection for their technology. Mr. Schultz works with his clients to align the trial strategy with the client’s business objectives in order to obtain the optimal result for the client.
He has worked with clients in a wide variety of technology, including software, teleradiology, semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, electroluminescence wiring, software and hardware for rendering three dimensional graphics, portable electronic devices, digital signal processing devices, ophthalmic devices, video gaming machines, and wireless and cellular communication systems, such as 802.11, 3G and LTE.
Mr. Schultz believes that having a full and comprehensive understanding of the technology is necessary to create and execute the most beneficial strategy for the client. To that end, Mr. Schultz utilizes his scientific background in genetics and biochemistry to help facilitate obtaining a deep understanding of his client’s technology.
In addition to resolving disputes for his clients, Mr. Schultz also works with his clients to obtain the most comprehensive protection for their technology, using a combination of patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets that best matches the business plans and objectives of the client. Mr. Schultz also assists clients in acquiring valuable monetization of its intellectual property, including due diligence on IP issues and valuations of extensive patent portfolios.
Mr. Schultz represents clients as both plaintiff and defendant, which allows Mr. Schultz to not only understand the most strategic plan for his client, but also understand the litigation strategy of the adverse party. He has represented clients at all stages of litigation, all the way through appeals. Mr. Schultz has also represented both petitioners and patent owners in various proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in both inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method review (CBM).
He enjoys working with clients to present complex technology in an understandable manner for courts and juries. When not working with clients, Mr. Schultz enjoys spending time watching his two kids enjoy Minnesota activities, like ice skating and ice fishing.
Counsel for Virtual Radiologic Corporation and Nighthawk Radiology Services in Virtual Radiologic Corp. v. Tandem, an action for patent infringement, copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and interference with contract in the District Court for the District of Arizona. We obtained injunctions in favor of our client on September 19, 2014, including a finding of patent infringement. The case involved our clients’ teleradiology technology and confidential business information. The action is civil action number 2:13-cv-01705.
Defense counsel to Tornier, Inc., in Nuvana Medical Innovations LLC v. Tornier, Inc., a patent infringement action filed in the Federal District Court in Delaware concerning the Aequalis Intermedullary Nail used for shoulder fractures. The action was resolved on confidential terms prior to significant litigation.
Counsel to a Requestor in an action naming the University of Texas at Austin under the Texas Public Information Act seeking disclosure of public records. Following several discovery motions and the depositions of records custodians, the matter was resolved by production of the requested records to our client.
Represented Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. in Hatch-Waxman patent litigation venued in the Northern District of Illinois to bring the generic Bystolic® (nebivolol) to market. A favorable settlement was reached prior to filing motions for summary judgment.
Represented a patent owner in six inter partes review proceedings filed on three patents involving wireless communication device technology.
Represented a patent owner in defeating institution of a covered business method review involving wireless communication device and wireless transmission technology.
Represented a petitioner in successfully invalidating the challenged claims in an inter partes review proceeding involving lighted cable technology.
Represented one of the world leading hearing aid manufacturers in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Minnesota. The case involved technology related to adjustable null placement. A favorable settlement was reached at a very early stage in the case.
Represented Best Buy in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. The case involved two patents related to DVD player technology. A favorable settlement was reached prior to claim construction briefing.
Represented Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) in patent litigation against Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI) in the Western District of Wisconsin. The case involved three patents in the areas of graphics processing. The District Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement on all three patents. The summary judgment was also based on a license SGI granted to Microsoft. The case was appealed to the Federal Circuit. AMD sustained two-thirds of the non-infringement issues appealed. The case was remanded to the District Court for resolution of remaining issues as to 5 claims on one patent. The case resolved shortly before trial after 37 motions-in-limine were filed by AMD.
Obtained a non-infringement decision after a five day arbitration for a semiconductor manufacturing company, and received an attorney's fees award. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP).
Obtained a license agreement for an online poker company after a favorable Markman decision. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)
- Volunteer Lawyers
- Wills for Heroes
- Junior Achievement
- Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
- University of Minnesota Alumni Association
- University of Cincinnati Alumni Association
- "Serial and Duplicative Petitions at PTAB by Apple, Other Tech Giants Flout Congressional Intent," IPWatchdog (November 8, 2018)
- “The USPTO Must End Repeated and Concerted Patent Attacks,” IPWatchdog (October 30, 2018)
- “Duplicative IPR Findings,” PatentlyO (October 29, 2018)
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.