Bryan Nese is a partner in the Intellectual Property group of Mayer Brown‘s Washington DC office. His practice focuses on patent litigation, both in district court and at the International Trade Commission (ITC). Bryan has been a crucial part of trial teams before juries and at the ITC and has assisted in all aspects of discovery, trial preparation, and post-trial filings. Bryan also has experience with inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Office.
A registered patent attorney, Bryan is also well-versed in handling the technical aspects of patent litigation. His technical experience extends to a broad range of technologies, including computer products and peripherals, image sensors, automotive technology, medical devices, electromechanical devices, and consumer products. During his engineering graduate studies, Bryan conducted combustion research at Penn State’s Propulsion Engineering Research Center. His research focused on the simulation of homogeneous-charge compression-ignition (HCCI) combustion processes and hydrogen fuel blends in automotive vehicles. As an undergraduate engineering student, Bryan led multi-disciplinary teams to design and construct devices such as fuel cells, underwater remotely operated vehicles, and guitar effects pedals.
District Court Patent Litigation: Bryan has had a hand in all aspects of district court litigation. His experience extends beyond drafting motions, briefs, and expert reports, and includes taking and defending expert and fact depositions, preparing expert and fact witnesses for trial testimony, and questioning witnesses at trial. Bryan’s patent cases have touched on relatively simple mechanical technologies as well as highly complex semiconductor devices. Bryan’s hands-on engineering experience allows him to master technologies ranging from fluid mechanics to electronics, which translates to more in-depth infringement and invalidity theories for his clients.
ITC Patent Litigation: Bryan has successfully litigated cases at the ITC from start to finish—from responding to the complaint, through the evidentiary hearing, to briefing before the Commission. He has substantial experience managing the lightning-fast schedules inherent in ITC cases, often with numerous asserted patents. From taking and defending expert depositions to preparing pre- and post-trial briefs, Bryan has achieved an exceptional understanding of the unique strategies and challenges of this specialized forum.
IPR Proceedings: Before joining Mayer Brown, Bryan drafted the first petition for inter partes review for one of the country’s oldest and largest IP firms. Since joining Mayer Brown, Bryan has added to his experience with IPRs by, for example, conducting prior art searches and drafting petitions.
Could the United States Supreme Court once again weigh in on Section 101 subject-matter eligibility? With the Court having asked for the views of the Solicitor General yesterday, it seems increasingly likely. Late in 2020, patentee American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. (American Axle) petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari, arguing that the Federal Circuit is “at a loss as to how to uniformly apply § 101.” Pet. for Writ of Certiorari at 3 (Dec. 28, 2020). Organizations such as the New York Intellectual Property Law Association, the New York City Bar Association, and the Chicago Patent Attorneys organization have all submitted amicus briefs supporting American Axle’s ask. On March 1, former USPTO Director David Kappos, former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel, and Senator Thom Tillis from North Carolina also jointly filed an amicus brief, arguing that the “disparate and inconsistent application” of the current Section 101 jurisprudence has led to “an unpredictable and unstable” patent system. Br. in Support of Am. Axle’s Pet. for Writ of Certiorari at 5 (Mar. 12, 2021).