Insights & News

Patrick M. Ryan and Benjamin K. Riley Named “Top 100 Lawyer” in California

San Francisco, CA – Patrick M. Ryan—head of Bartko law firm’s Litigation practice and Chair of its Antitrust and IP and Brand Protection groups, and a member of the firm’s Executive Committee—and Benjamin K. Riley—a principal in Bartko’s Litigation practice and a member of the firm’s Executive Committee—were both selected by the California Daily Journal as two of the “Top 100 Lawyers in California” for 2023.

Patrick M. Ryan Named Top 100 Lawyer

San Francisco, CA – Patrick M. Ryan—Bartko’s Co-Managing Partner, head of litigation, and Chair of its Antitrust and IP and Brand Protection groups, and a member of the firm’s Executive Committee—was selected by the California Daily Journal as one of the “Top 100 Lawyers in California” for 2023.

Arkansas Business Journal Spotlights $222.7M Trade Secrets Win

The Arkansas Business Journal recently featured Bartko Pavia LLP’s major courtroom victory in the Zest Labs v. Walmart case, where a federal jury awarded Zest Labs $222.7 million in a trade secrets retrial against the retail giant.

Bartko Pavia Files Motion for Sanctions Against Walmart on Behalf of Zest Labs Over Alleged Concealed Patents

San Francisco, CA – October 25, 2024 – As featured in Law 360– Patrick Ryan, co-managing partner of Bartko LLP, and a specialist in intellectual property and trade secret litigation, has filed a motion for sanctions against Walmart Inc. on behalf of Zest Labs, Inc. The motion, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, accuses Walmart of withholding critical patent-related evidence in ongoing litigation over Zest’s proprietary shelf-freshness technology.

Bartko Pavia Obtains Defense Win in Uber Trade Secret Case

San Francisco, CA — The Bartko team, led by Patrick M. Ryan and Sean McTigue, scored a major win in trade secret, tort, and breach of contract case entitled Bama Commercial Leasing LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., CGC-19-579763 (S.F. Super. Ct., filed Oct. 3, 2019).

Bartko Pavia’s Patrick M. Ryan obtains $222 million jury verdict against Walmart

Press Contact

Bartko Pavia Secures Summary Judgment Win for Vir2us, Inc. on Eve of Trial

A Bartko Pavia team led by Brian Smith achieved a significant victory for its client, Vir2us, Inc., when the Federal Court in the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of Vir2us.

Bartko Pavia Wins $845 Million Trade Secret Verdict for ASML

February 19, 2020 – Bartko Pavia scored the highest Intellectual Property and Trade Secrets victory in California in 2019 and was ranked Number 2 overall in the California Daily Journal’s Top Verdicts (PDF) by Dollar in California for 2019. In May of 2019, Bartko secured an $845,114,000.00 victory in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Patrick M. Ryan is quoted as saying: “One thing that’s always a challenge in a trade secret or intellectual property trial is the need to make complex technology simple and easy to understand for the jury.” Also, Patrick stated: “Over the course of the trial, we really went through the technology and explained how it worked and why it was important, and the jury really got it.”The trial team from Bartko was led by Patrick M. Ryan, and he and Stephen Steinberg, Sean McTigue, and Brian Smith all examined witnesses and gave argument during the trial, supported by Bartko attorneys Joseph Fraresso and Chad DeVeaux.

New York and DOJ Introduce Stricter Data Privacy Requirements

New York Updates Data Breach Notification Law  

Firm Report: The Line Between Bio and Technology

The question of what the biotechnology industry can patent ripened into a broad industry debate after two landmark Supreme Court decisions – Mayo Collaborative Servs v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. (2012) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014).  Their collective holding – that under 35 U.S.C. § 101, inherently natural phenomena cannot be patented, even with the addition of previously known secondary technologies – led to the invalidation of numerous patents and likely narrowed the scope of what can be patented in the future. View the PDF article in its entirety.

Benjamin K. Riley Publishes Article in the Litigation Magazine on Trying a Trade Secret Case: A Road Map

Trade secret trials challenge and engage all of a trial lawyer’s essential skills and training. Dealing with state-of-the-art technology–intricate circuit designs, sophisticated manufacturing processes, or highly complex formulas–is often a huge challenge, but there are other pitfalls for the unaware lawyer. Special care must be given in these cases to issues of disclosure, discovery, the preparation of witnesses, the handling of experts and juries, and the use of graphics and technology in the courtroom. With legal and other barriers being erected in patent litigation and with the recent passage of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, trade secret cases have moved to the forefront of technology litigation. Trade secrets litigators must understand the unique and critical strategies, requirements, and hazards presented by the trial of a technical trade secret case. View a PDF of the article.

ABA Antitrust Plaintiffs’ Roundtable Will Feature Insights from Ian Papendick

Ian Papendick will be a featured speaker at the ABA Antitrust Plaintiffs’ Roundtable, held at The Jay, Autograph Collection Hotel in San Francisco. The program brings together leading antitrust practitioners and thought leaders to discuss key developments and strategies in plaintiffs’ antitrust litigation.

C. Griffith Towle Spoke at a Recent Webinar Regarding Proving Irreparable Harm in Lanham Act Cases

C. Griffith Towle spoke at a recent webinar regarding proving irreparable harm in Lanham Act cases after the Supreme Court’s decisions in eBay and Winter.

Ben Riley Speaks About Federal Vaccine Injury Cases

On August 5, 2021, Ben Riley spoke on a Bar Association of San Francisco panel about Vaccine-Related Legal Issues concerning production, administration, and litigation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine-related issues have been elevated to front page news. As the international scientific community races to develop safe and effective vaccines, debates rage about the government taking over private manufacturing facilities for production of critical medical equipment and vaccines, employers mandating vaccination for its employees, and disease and disability claims arising from vaccines. Professor Dan Farber from Berkeley Law addressed the Defense Production Act and limits on the government’s ability to use private facilities for the public good, while Steve Hirschfeld spoke on employment law issues relating to vaccination requirements and status.