Ryan J. McAllister

I'll research this attorney before writing the summary.

Ryan J. McAllister — patent litigation summary

Focus areas / data limits. The only tracked matter for Mr. McAllister is Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corporation, which concerns handheld video game controller hardware — specifically rear-paddle controls claimed in U.S. Patent Nos. 8,641,525, 9,089,770, 9,289,688 and 9,352,229. That is a mechanical/electromechanical consumer-hardware case, not a Wi-Fi/SEP, pharmaceutical, or standards-essential matter. A single tracked appearance is too thin a basis to characterize a broader technology practice, and I was unable to locate a publicly indexed firm bio, practice description, or other profile for a "Ryan J. McAllister" at Shook, Hardy & Bacon (searches returned Shook IP attorneys such as Beth A. Larigan, Claire Terrebonne, and Megan J. Redmond, and unrelated individuals sharing the surname). Anything beyond the one case should be treated as unverified.

Side preference. The tracked record shows 0 plaintiff-side and 1 defendant-side appearance, i.e. defense of an operating company (Valve Corporation). There is no tracked indication of NPE/PAE-side assertion work, and no verified evidence of plaintiff-side practice.

Firm context. The appearance is attributed to Shook, Hardy & Bacon, a large national firm with a substantial IP and patent litigation practice. I found no reliable public record of prior firms, in-house roles, bar admissions, or education for this attorney, so those details are omitted rather than guessed. Note that "Ryan McAllister" is a common name and I could not confirm that any particular profile corresponds to this individual.

Notable matters. Ironburg v. Valve is the standout. The case was filed in the Northern District of Georgia in 2015 and transferred to the Western District of Washington after TC Heartland; it proceeded on parallel tracks at the PTAB, where Valve cancelled numerous asserted claims across the '525 and '770 patents, while other claims survived. A jury found Valve willfully infringed the '525 patent and awarded damages; the district court nonetheless declined to award attorneys' fees or enhanced damages, and the parties litigated IPR estoppel issues through multiple Federal Circuit appeals (including a 2026 decision addressing the "skilled searcher" standard for § 315(e)(2) estoppel). I emphasize that I could not verify which specific filings or arguments Mr. McAllister personally authored — the outcome description reflects the docket and published opinions, not his individual role.

PTAB / IPR experience. The Ironburg matter generated extensive IPR activity (multiple petitions against the four asserted patents, with several Federal Circuit appeals). Whether Mr. McAllister personally appears as counsel in IPR/PGR proceedings is not established by the available sources.

Bar / education. Not reliably sourced; omitted.