Ryan Bricker focuses his practice on litigation involving trademark, copyright, Internet law, and related commercial issues. He has successfully represented clients in defensive and offensive litigation matters in federal court, state court, and international arbitration forums. As part of this practice, Mr. Bricker has litigated disputes involving the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Lanham Act, the Federal Anti-Dilution Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Communications Decency Act, and various state right of publicity and unfair competition statutes.
Apart from litigation, Mr. Bricker has developed and directs international intellectual property enforcement programs for some of the world’s best known brands and content creators. In connection with these programs, he regularly counsels clients on issues related to monitoring and policing avenues of e-commerce and web-based marketplaces, uncovering and combating piracy problems, and securing domain names through a variety of domain name dispute processes.
Mr. Bricker has litigated cases and implemented strategies to protect and enforce the intellectual property rights of leading companies in a variety of industries, including fashion and luxury goods, household goods, consumer electronics, technology and software, entertainment, gaming, social media, and wine and spirits.
Represented client in lawsuit involving terminated distributor asserting counterclaims for antitrust violations, deceptive franchise practices and dealer termination claims.
Represented tequila producer in ICC arbitration involving disputes under tequila supply and distribution agreement.
Represented Williams-Sonoma, Inc. against trademark infringement claims rooted in an initial interest confusion theory based on the retailer’s display of goods in its search engine results.
Represented client in AAA arbitration against a former licensee involving trademark infringement, breach of contract, and tortious interference claims.
Represented Instagram in trademark infringement and breach of contract litigation against a user of Instagram’s API Platform.
Represented Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC in a copyright and DMCA infringement litigation involving its PlayStation® family and more. Successfully obtained preliminary injunction.
Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC v. Zoomba LDC, No. 10-3909 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
Advised GED Testing Service LLC in supporting FTC investigation and prosecution of fraudulent high school “diploma mill” syndicates.
Represented NFL Properties and its member clubs in securing a broad temporary restraining order and seizure order, permitting law enforcement to seize counterfeit tickets and goods sold at and around Super Bowl 50.
George Washington University Law School, J.D. (2009)
Ohio State University, B.A. (2006) cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2010)
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (2010)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (2010)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (2010)
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (2010)
American Bar Association, Member
International Trademark Association, Member
International Anticounterfeiting Coalition, Member
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.