Patent litigation attorney

Ryan A. Schmid

6 tracked appearances — 5 plaintiff · 1 defendant.

Specialty & background

Specialty & side preference. Ryan A. Schmid is a trial attorney whose practice centers on high-stakes patent litigation in U.S. district courts, the ITC, and the PTAB, with Federal Circuit appeals. Per his King & Spalding bio, his technology coverage spans mechanical and electrical engineering, semiconductors, computer software, telecommunications, and digital standards, plus Hatch-Waxman (Paragraph IV) litigation for branded pharmaceutical companies. In both tracked matters he appeared for the plaintiff/patent owner — SportsCastr Inc. and a second lead-counsel matter — so his known docket skews plaintiff-side, representing operating companies and technology owners asserting patents rather than defending accused infringers.

Firm context & notable cases. Schmid is based in King & Spalding's Washington, D.C. IP litigation group; he previously practiced at Foley & Lardner (Super Lawyers/Rising Stars listings, 2017–2020). His most prominent tracked matter is SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex., No. 2:23-cv-00471), where he appeared as of counsel for SportsCastr (d/b/a Panda Interactive) in litigation over interactive live-streaming and sports-data patents asserted against Genius Sports and Sportradar. Law360 also lists him on Webroot, Inc. et al. v. AO Kaspersky Lab (W.D. Tex., 6:22-cv-00243), a cybersecurity-patent case before Judge Albright filed in March 2022 and closed in April 2024 (RPX), which matches his second tracked plaintiff appearance as lead counsel. A Law360 entry also links him to WSOU Investments LLC v. F5 Networks Inc., though his side in that NPE matter is unverified.

PTAB / IPR experience. His firm bio lists PTAB practice as a core focus, and the SportsCastr/Genius Sports dispute has generated a substantial parallel IPR campaign (IPR2024-01305, -01307 through -01311; IPR2025-00251/252) in which King & Spalding represented SportsCastr as patent owner — including at least one final written decision finding claims unpatentable (IPR2024-01308, now on appeal) and one denied institution (IPR2025-00251). His personal appearances in those IPRs are not confirmed from public records, so his IPR involvement should be characterized as part of his broader PTAB-focused practice.

Bar / education. J.D., University of Florida Levin College of Law (2010); B.S. Electrical Engineering, University of Florida (2006); admitted in Florida (2010) and D.C. (2012). Before law school he was an engineer at Rockwell Collins designing avionics software/hardware interfaces.

Firms

Roles

  • of counsel3
  • lead counsel1
  • of counsel (Plaintiff PANDA)1
  • district-court counsel1

Cases (6)