We conduct trials and appeals. As veteran trial lawyers, we know how to prepare a case for a jury, and have done so many times. Mr. Rylander has conducted numerous jury trials to verdict, representing both plaintiff and the defense. He has thousands of court appearances, State and Federal. He has handled appellate work and Federal and State litigation both in and outside of the patent and intellectual property realm. He has appeared in Federal and State courts and administrative tribunals nationwide. His experience includes areas such as patent infringement, patent interference, patent appeal, intellectual property ownership, trademark opposition, unfair competition, trademark and copyright infringement, government contracts, federal tort claims, construction disputes, bid protests, and commercial disputes, among others.
Mr. Rylander provides clients with substantial experience in complex and multi jurisdiction litigation management. He has participated in appellate practice before State and Federal courts, including the submission of an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. He has handled cases before U.S. District Courts for the Western District of Washington, the District of Oregon, the Eastern District of Washington, the District of Columbia, the District of Maryland, the Eastern District of New York, and the Middle District of Florida, as well as the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the U.S. Comptroller General, and the Federal Boards of Contract Appeals for the Department of Defense, the Department of Interior, the General Services Administration, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Agriculture, and the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board.
Case Study #1
A client came in after losing a patent priority interference before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). The client had represented himself/herself against a large law firm. Every possible ruling of the BPAI appeared to go against the client. With only days left in the statutory time limit to appeal, we recognized that a de novo appeal to Federal District Court provided a better opportunity for the client than a review on the record by the Federal Circuit. By quick action and thorough investigation of all possible witnesses, and navigating the complex interference legal requirements, we succeed in bringing the client favorable relief. The BPAI decision was reversed, and priority awarded to our client.
Case Study #2
A business retained us to examine a competitor’s use of the business’ trademark a nearby city. Investigators snapped pictures showing the offending use. The competitor refused to back down and suit was filed for trademark infringement. We succeeded in receiving an injunction for our client against the competitor’s use of the name, requiring the competitor to change the name.
Case Study #3
A business person who created a unique line of furniture asked us to look into available protection. We determined the possibility of protection under trade dress laws, and under copyright law. We quickly filed copyright applications on each furniture piece, and had the applications in place for the client when the client met with a large regional retailer. The client received favorable results after the retailer’s representative confided that if the copyright applications had not been filed, the retailer had intended to just run the line itself, without making a deal.
Case Study #4
A business owner retained us to examine actions of former employees who had left the company and taken up similar positions with another company. Further, evidence existed that the employees had transferred vendor and customer and pricing information from their work computers to disks and removed the disks from the work place. Through quick action we secured a temporary restraining order, later converted to a preliminary injunction against the employee working for the competitor, and against use of the confidential client information.
Case Study #5
A business owner and inventor was referred to us to examine actions of the Postal Service. The Postal Service had “approved” for placement in rural mailboxes a patented secure mailbox conversion device. After the client had incurred significant costs in running a line and marketing the invention, the Postal Service, without explanation, voided the “approval” leaving the client out significant sums. Through suit in Federal District Court, we succeeded in providing favorable relief for the client to compensate this damage.