Ryan B. McCrum

I'll research this attorney's background before drafting.

Let me verify the WilmerHale connection and check for additional details.

Ryan B. McCrum — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Focus areas. McCrum is a Cleveland-based patent litigator with roughly 25 years of experience, and his practice is anchored in International Trade Commission Section 337 work — he co-chairs Jones Day's ITC practice (jointly with David Maiorana, per Legal 500). His technology mix is broad and hardware-leaning: consumer electronics (SanDisk, General Electric, LGE adversary matters), appliances and floor care (Tineco, Bissell), tobacco/vaporizer products (R.J. Reynolds), sporting goods (Callaway), and life sciences/pharmaceuticals (the Merck/Idenix nucleotide HCV litigation against Gilead). His technical credentials are civil engineering (B.S., Johns Hopkins), not EE, CS, or chemistry, though his docket spans mechanical, consumer-device, and biopharma subject matter. Firm and directory profiles also describe substantial PTAB work and appeals.

Side preference. The tracked data for this attorney shows 2 appearances, both defendant-side (0 plaintiff-side): one as lead counsel at Jones Day and one as counsel at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. That sample is narrow and appears to capture only a slice of his practice. Public records show he regularly acts on the enforcement side as well — Jones Day's own bio credits him with leading separate ITC teams to victory for R.J. Reynolds (offensive case, exclusion order affirmed on appeal) and Tineco (defensive), and he was identified as petitioner's counsel for Merck in a group of IPRs concerning U.S. Patent 8,562,999. He also appeared for Xiaomi in Dareltech, LLC v. Xiaomi (S.D.N.Y.) and co-filed a motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel there. Net: he represents operating companies on both sides of patent disputes, and I found no NPE/PAE representation, so he is not a plaintiff-side NPE specialist.

Firm context. Current firm is Jones Day (Cleveland office), where he is a partner and co-chair of the ITC practice. He is also an adjunct professor at Cleveland State University College of Law, teaching a course on ITC patent litigation. The structured case list includes a single appearance under Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, but I could not verify any WilmerHale affiliation, prior employment, or of-counsel relationship in searches — his professional bios and directory listings uniformly show Jones Day. I would flag that entry as unconfirmed and worth checking against the underlying docket before relying on it; it may reflect co-counsel of record rather than a firm affiliation.

Notable matters and PTAB. Jones Day's bio credits him with helping lead the trial team in the Merck/Idenix v. Gilead case that produced a reported $2.54 billion verdict (I have not independently verified the post-trial and appellate disposition). Other results the firm reports: an ITC win for R.J. Reynolds with the exclusion order affirmed by the Federal Circuit; a defense victory for Tineco clearing all then-current products; defense of two consumer electronics companies against LGE in which all claims of four patents were found invalid or not infringed (two dependent claims designed around); and a Callaway ITC defense against Hitachi in which Hitachi withdrew all claims on the eve of trial after the Staff sided with Callaway. On PTAB work, he appears as counsel of record in IPR proceedings (e.g., the Merck filings at IPR2017-00378/-00380/-00390), so IPR experience is documented, though I could not confirm the frequency of his PTAB appearances from available sources.

Bar / education. Admitted in Ohio; J.D. magna cum laude, Case Western Reserve University (1999, Order of the Coif); B.S. Civil Engineering, Johns Hopkins University (1996). Recognized as a Law360 "Rising Star" in IP (2013), Chambers USA "notable practitioner" (2015), and IAM Patent 1000 (2024).

Note on sourcing: the technology-area and notable-case details above come primarily from Jones Day's own attorney bio and Legal 500/IAM directory profiles, which are firm-supplied and self-interested; the two tracked docket entries in the structured list are untitled, so I could not match them to specific cases by name.