Bryan Nese is a partner in the Intellectual Property group of Mayer Brown's Washington DC office. His practice focuses on complex 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 has particular expertise in advising clients on how IP assets can fit into an affirmative recovery plan, including strategies for monetizing robust patent portfolios.

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.


Representative District Court Experience:

  • American River Nutrition, LLC v. Beijing Gingko Group Biological Tech. Co., Ltd., et al. (C.D. Cal. 2022) – Obtained complete victory of no infringement on summary judgment for patent related to processes for producing the dietary supplement tocotrienol.
  • Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2021) – Settled case on favorable terms for patentee Maxell just after selecting jury for two-week trial involving multiple patents related to image processing, GPS, and battery-saver technologies.
  • Northwestern University v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp., et al. (N.D. Ill. 2021) – Negotiated highly favorable settlement, which resolved multi-patent case for robotics technology shortly after filing.
  • Seiko Epson Corp., et al. v. Vision Imaging Supplies, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal. 2021) – Resolved case with early settlement before incurring the expense of fact discovery, claim construction, or preparation of invalidity contentions.
  • Canon Inc. v. LD Prods., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2019) / Canon Inc. v. Globest Trading, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2019) – Led pair of cases involving five patents directed to printer cartridges to favorable settlement with minimal expense to client
  • Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE USA LLC (E.D. Tex. 2018) – Obtained jury verdict of $43.3 million for client, with the jury finding willful infringement of all claims of all seven asserted patents, covering digital image processing, GPS navigation, cellular transmission, and audio processing; served as lead technical associate throughout the case.
  • ZTE Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd. (PTAB 2018) – Persuaded the Board not to institute review on seven separate petitions for inter partes review of patents asserted by client in pending district court litigation.
  • Zhejiang Med. Co., Ltd. v. Kaneka Corp. (S.D. Tex. 2018) – Obtained jury verdict of no patent infringement for claims directed to process for manufacturing coenzyme Q10 in declaratory judgment action.
  • Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device Co. (E.D. Tex. 2017-18) – Represented patent holder in eight-patent case related to cellular devices.
  • SHM Int’l Corp. v. Guangdong Chant Group, Inc. (N.D. Ga. 2016) – Successfully dismissed thirteen of the plaintiff’s fourteen claims under Rule 12(b)(6), resulting in dismissal of one defendant from the case entirely and which led to favorable settlement.
  • Changzhou Kaidi Electrical Co., Ltd., et al. v. Okin America, Inc. (D. Md. 2015) – Obtained a jury verdict of no infringement for market leader in linear actuator technology; successfully defeated two motions for summary judgment of infringement and won summary judgment of no willful infringement leading up to trial.
  • Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Canon, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex./N.D. Cal. 2014) – Represented leading electronics manufacturer in patent infringement suit involving five patents related to flash memory technology. Drafted briefing that resulted in successful transfer to the Northern District of California.
  • L-3 Commc’ns Corp. v. Sony Corp., et al. (D. Del. 2013) – Obtained summary judgment ruling of no infringement for one of the world’s largest technology companies in patent case involving CMOS image sensors; crafted claim construction briefs that led to favorable constructions and the patentee’s withdrawal of over half of the asserted claims; invalidated all asserted patent claims on successful JMOL ruling following jury trial.

Representative ITC Experience: 

  • Certain High-Potency Sweeteners, Processes for Making Same, and Products Containing Same (ITC 2022) – Resolved five-patent case involving processes for producing the artificial sweetener acesulfame potassium on rare summary determination victory of invalidity / no technical prong of the domestic industry.
  • Certain Mobile Elec. Devices & Laptop Computers (ITC 2021) – Organized team on five-patent case against Apple, covering a range of smartphone and laptop technologies.
  • Certain Collapsible and Portable Furniture (ITC 2021) – Led team to trial in dual-patent case involving foldable rocking chairs.
  • Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (ITC 2019) – Served as technical lead for ten Respondents in six-patent case brought by Brother; advised clients on redesigned products and successfully obtained clearance of those redesigns by patentee
  • Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (ITC 2018) – Served as technical lead for several respondents in seven-patent investigation related to printer cartridges; obtained summary determination of no infringement based on favorable claim construction, which was upheld on appeal at the Federal Circuit in May 2020
  • Certain Human Milk Oligosaccharides and Methods for Producing the Same (ITC 2018) – Second-chaired trial team in dual-patent case related to production of 2’-fucosyllactose used for synthetic breast milk; persuaded the Commission to reverse ALJ on issue of redesigned process, which clarified key ITC precedent regarding redesigns
  • Certain Powered Cover Plates (ITC 2018) – Acted as technical lead for multi-patent cases involving cover plates for electrical wall sockets
  • Certain Backpack Chairs (ITC 2017) – Through aggressive discovery and strategic challenges to complainant’s infringement theories, succeeded in convincing complainant to withdraw the complaint, terminating the investigation, prior to claim construction briefing.
  • Certain Composite Aerogel Insulation Materials and Methods for Manufacturing the Same (ITC 2017) – Served as second chair for Section 337 trial involving four patents directed to aerogel technology.
  • Certain High-Potency Sweeteners, Processes for Making Same, and Products Containing Same (ITC 2017) – Defended multiple respondents in case involving patent for artificial sweeteners, which ended with complainant withdrawing the complaint after discovery inquires brought to light an on-sale bar issue.
  • Certain Toy Figurines and Toy Sets Containing the Same (ITC 2015) – Represented subsidiary of one of the U.S.’s largest toy manufacturers in investigation involving design patent, trade secret, and copyright infringement claims. Achieved early, favorable settlement.
  • Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (ITC 2014) – Defended leading printer cartridge manufacturers in ITC investigation involving nine patents for laser toner cartridges. Oversaw all aspects of case and presented arguments that led to extremely favorable settlement less than one week prior to hearing.
  • Certain Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices (ITC 2013) – Defended Fortune 100 technology company in ITC investigation in which both the ALJ and the Commission found no infringement of any of the four asserted patents. Also supported team in briefing to the Commission, which led to new precedent requiring “articles protected by the patent” for licensing-based domestic industries.

Representative IPR Experience:

  • Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd. (PTAB 2019-20) – Assisted with defense of ten IPR petitions, six of which were denied institution.
  • ZTE Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd. (PTAB 2018) – Persuaded the Board not to institute review on seven separate petitions for inter partes review of patents asserted by client in pending district court litigation.
  • LG Elecs., Inc. v. ATI Techs. ULC (PTAB 2016) – Invalidated challenged claims in trio of patents directed to graphic processing technology; thwarted patentee’s attempt to swear behind prior art in all three cases by eliciting favorable cross-examination testimony of patentee’s witnesses and exposing weaknesses in patentee’s 100+ documents offered to support conception, reduction to practice, and reasonable diligence.
  • Hewlett-Packard Co. v. U.S. Phillips Corp., et al. (PTAB 2016) – Persuaded Patent Trial and Appeal Board not to institute review of client’s three patents related to audio codec technology.
  • Adv. Micro Devices, Inc.  v. LG Elecs., Inc. (PTAB 2016) – Served as technical lead on two IPRs defending the validity of LGE’s patents; prevented petitioner from invaliding all challenged claims of the asserted patents.
  • LG Elecs., Inc. v. Mondis Tech. Ltd. (PTAB 2015) – Located crucial prior art and assisted with drafting petitions for inter partes review of patents for video-display control.
  • Hewlett-Packard Company v. MCM Portfolio LLC (PTAB 2014) – Represented Fortune 100 company and invalidated all challenged claims of non-practicing entity’s patent for multi-flashcard reader.


George Washington University Law School, 法律博士

Pennsylvania State University, MS

Rowan University, BS, magna cum laude


  • 纽约州
  • 华盛顿哥伦比亚特区
  • 新泽西州


  • District of Columbia Court of Appeals
  • New York State Court of Appeals
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • 美国联邦巡回上诉法院
  • 美国哥伦比亚特区地方法院
  • US District Court for the District of New Jersey
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
  • 美国纽约州南区地方法院
  • US District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • US Patent and Trademark Office
  • 美国最高法院


  • Professorial lecturer at law, George Washington University Law School (2013 – 2020)
  • Member, ITC Trial Lawyers Association
  • District of Columbia Bar, IP Law Community Steering Committee (Patent Sub-Committee Co-Chair, 2016-17)
  • Children’s Law Center Advisory Board Member (2016 – present)
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association, International Trade Committee (2018 – 2021)
  • Recipient of the 2009 GW Law Michael J. Avenatti Award for Excellence in Pre-Trial and Trial Advocacy