Ryan J. Cudnik

ryan@martensenip.com
719-426-3421
Download vCard

Ryan J. CudnikSmall businesses and Fortune 500 companies alike trust Ryan Cudnik to handle their intellectual property and commercial litigation and transactions. From high-profile patent litigation to trademark, copyright and trade secret disputes, Ryan has litigated the full range of IP issues, including complex multidistrict litigation (MDL), Hatch-Waxman (ANDA) litigation and unfair import investigations (section 337 patent infringement actions) in the U.S. International Trade Commission. He also handles high-stakes commercial litigation that frequently involves a blend of commercial and IP issues.

On the transactional side, Ryan prosecutes trademark and copyright applications before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. Copyright Office, respectively. Ryan is also well versed in IP licensing and contracts, among other commercial matters.
 

REPRESENTATIVE CASES

HATCH-WAXMAN (ANDA) CASES
Amarin Pharma Inc. et al. v. West-Ward Pharms. Corp. et al., No. 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK (D. Nev.). Case involved the pharmaceutical product Vascepa® (icosapent ethyl).

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sicor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., No. 1:06-cv-00238-SEB-DML (S.D. Ind.). Case involved the pharmaceutical product Gemzar® (gemcitabine), claims of patent infringement, and defenses of anticipation, obviousness, lack of enablement, and obviousness-type double patenting.

Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Pharmaceutical Holdings Corp., No. 06-cv-4418 (E.D. Pa.). Case involved the pharmaceutical product Mucinex® (guaifenesin).

Astellas Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Ranbaxy Pharm. et al., No. 05-CV-2563-MLC (D.N.J.). Case involved the pharmaceutical product Flomax® (tamsulosin), claims of patent infringement, and defenses of noninfringement, lack of enablement, and obviousness-type double patenting.

Merck & Co., Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. Ltd., No. 04-cv-1313 (D. Del.). Case involved the pharmaceutical product Propecia® (finasteride).

In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1291, Master Docket No. M-21-81 (S.D.N.Y.). Case involved the pharmaceutical product Prilosec® (omeprazole).

In re Gabapentin Patent Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1384, Master Docket No. 00-cv-2931 (D.N.J.). Case involved the pharmaceutical product Neurontin® (gabapentin).

OTHER IP CASES
New Day Financial, LLC v. United Services Automobile Association, No. 8:17-cv-03317-PJM (D. Md.). Case involved USAA’s advertising campaigns “Mine Was Earned” and “Thank You,” NewDay USA’s advertising campaign “That’s Me,” briefing regarding NewDay USA’s successful motion to dismiss USAA’s first-filed Texas complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, and USAA’s claims of copyright and trademark infringement.

USSC Holdings Corp. et al. v. TK Products, LLC et al., Nos. 3:16-cv-00398-RCJ-WGC and 3:16-cv-00697-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev.). Case involved sound-reactive fire pit products, a prior co-development agreement, and a claim of trade secret misappropriation.

Galaxy Gaming, Inc. v. AGS, LLC & Red Card Gaming, Inc., AAA Case No. 01-15-0002-3148. Arbitration occurred within a federal action styled AGS, LLC & Red Card Gaming, Inc. v. Galaxy Gaming, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02018-LDG-CWH (D. Nev.). Case involved the casino table game High Card Flush, preliminary injunction briefing, and arbitration claims for willful trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, fraud on the trademark office, and breach of contract.

Walker Digital Table Sys., LLC v. Gaming Partners Int’l, Inc., No. 2:14cv-00438 (D. Nev.). Case involved phase jitter modulation (PJM) RFID technology used in casino chips and WDTS’s Perfect Pay baccarat table and system.

In the Matter of Certain Gemcitabine and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-766 (U.S. ITC). Case involved the import of allegedly infringing API from China and allegations of forgery and fabricated evidence re: the Chinese API manufacturer.

OTHER CASES TRIED TO CONCLUSION
Timm Peddie v. Spot Devices, Inc. et al., No. CV13-01446 (2d Jud. D. Ct. Nev.). Case involved claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud (including securities fraud), and dissenter’s rights.

James R. LaFrieda & Ellen A. LaFrieda v. Nancy A. Gilbert, No. CV13-00291 (2d Jud. D. Ct. Nev.). Case involved a claim for legal malpractice related to a previous construction defect case.

Areas of Practice
  • Patent Litigation
  • Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Intellectual Property Licensing
Bar Admissions
  • Nevada
  • Maryland
  • District of Columbia
  • New York
  • U.S. District Court, District of Nevada
  • U.S. District Court, District of Maryland
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
Education

The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, Washington, D.C., United States. J.D. – 2002

Hampden-Sydney College, Hampden-Sydney, VA, United States. B.S., Biology – 1996

Professional Associations and Memberships
  • American Bar Association
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • District of Columbia Bar Association
  • Maryland State Bar Association
  • Nevada Justice Association
  • State Bar of Nevada
Previous Work History

Cudnik Legal and Intellectual Property, PLLC, Reno, NV
Managing Member, 2020 — Present

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Reno, NV
Intellectual Property Litigation and Transactional Counsel, 2012 – 2020

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC
Patent Litigation Associate, 2008 – 2011

Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto (now Venable LLP), New York, NY
Patent Litigation Associate, 2002 – 2008

Community Involvement
  • Renown Health Foundation, Magic Gala Planning Committee
  • Catholic Charities of Northern Nevada, Development Committee
  • Reno Ducks Unlimited, Annual Dinner Planning Committee
  • High Sierra Lacrosse League, Volunteer Coach
  • Washoe Little League, Volunteer Coach