Bryan G. Harrison

Bryan G. Harrison concentrates his practice on intellectual property litigation with a primary focus on advising clients regarding patent, trademark and copyright infringement, computer system performance, and antitrust and unfair competition, as well as prosecuting and defending actions in which such issues arise.

He serves as regional or national litigation counsel for clients and has prosecuted or defended cases in the various courts of over 30 states, Canada and the European Union. Bryan is Managing Partner of Locke Lord’s Atlanta office.

Bryan has spoken and written articles concerning patent infringement, software copyright, electronic commerce, antitrust and other areas of the law and has provided pro bono services to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta and its various parishes.

Prior to going into private practice, Bryan worked for the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division where he reviewed and investigated potential anticompetitive effects of proposed transactions under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act and prosecuted numerous antitrust and other white-collar criminal actions.

Bryan’s representative experience includes:

• Represented medical device start up in intellectual property, Series A and B financings, and related issues
• Represented international tool manufacturer and its distributors in patent and trademark clearance matters and development of international patent portfolio
• Represented environmental testing company in development of international patent enforcement and licensing program
• Represented U.S. subsidiary and foreign parent in claims of violations of Iran Sanctions Act, as amended, by Office of Export Enforcement, obtained finding of no violation
• In the Matter of Certain Crawler Cranes and Components Thereof (U.S.I.T.C. and Fed. Cir.) (represented respondent manufacturer and U.S. sales subsidiary in ITC investigation and subsequent appeal relating to ultra-lift reconfigurable cranes, completed one week trial and obtained Commission Decision finding no infringement)
• In the Matter of Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Devices Containing Same (U.S.I.T.C.) (represented respondent manufacturer in ITC investigation relating to ground fault circuit interrupters, completed two week trial and obtained final Commission order)
• In the Matter of Certain Toner Cartridges and Devices Containing Same (U.S.I.T.C.) (represented non-respondent companies impacted by General Exclusion Order seeking clearance opinions from Office of International Trade, received full clearance on products)
• In the Matter of Certain DC Controllers and Products Containing Same (U.S.I.T.C.) (represented respondent manufacturer in ITC investigation relating to DC-DC converters, obtained settlement)
• In the Matter of Certain Light Emitting Diodes and Devices Containing Same (U.S.I.T.C.) (represented respondent manufacturer in ITC investigation relating to solid state light emitting diodes, obtained settlement)
• Wall Family Holdings, LLLP v. Terumo Medical Corp., et al. (W.D. Tex.) (lead counsel for plaintiff in patent enforcement program for pioneering medical device patent against numerous U.S. and international medical device manufacturers)
• Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Factory Direct Wholesale, LLC (C.D. Cal.) (lead counsel for defendant in patent infringement action, obtained summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims)
• Profectus Tech. LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., et al. (E.D. Tx.) (represented a group of defendants in a patent infringement action relating to adjustment/activation of computer screen in response to external event, obtained settlement)
• Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Zheijiang Dongzheng Elec. Co., Ltd. (D.N.M.) (represented the defendant in a pair of patent infringement suits involving ground fault circuit interrupters; obtaining summary judgment of non-infringement in one case and a Markman ruling in the second, which resulted in a settlement)
• Synchrome Technology v. LG Electronics USA, et al. (N.D. Ga.) (represented the defendant in a patent infringement suit involving communication methods for peripheral storage devices, obtained settlement)
• Ricoh Co. Ltd. v. General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. (D.N.J.) (represented a defendant in a patent infringement suit involving numerous copier toner bottle patents, obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on certain claims and settlement of remaining claims)
• Asia Optical v. LTI (D. Del.) (represented the plaintiff in a patent infringement suit involving laser optics, obtained settlement)
• Arrival Star, et al. v. Datatrac Corporation, et al. (S.D. Fla., N.D. Ga, N.D. Ill.) (represented unrelated defendants in patent infringement suits involving geo-location technology, obtained settlement)
• Zoltek v. Lockheed Martin, et al. (N.D. Ga.) (Georgia trial counsel for plaintiff in patent infringement suit involving manufacturing process for stealth technology materials utilized in F-22 fighter, en banc CAFC ruled that manufacturer Defendants were subject to 28 U.S.C. §1498 immunity despite government’s earlier claims that §1498 was inapplicable)
• Fotomedia Tech. v. Fujifilm U.S.A, et al. (E.D. Tx.) (represented group of defendants in a patent infringement suit involving methods of internet-based photo sharing, obtained dismissal of clients from action)
• Wisefame International LTD et al v. FKA Distributing Co. d/b/a HoMedics (E.D. Mi.) (represented plaintiff manufacturer in a patent suit involving electromechanical control systems for back massage devices)
• EMC Corp. v. Columbia Data Products, Inc. (D. Ut.) (represented the defendant in a patent infringement suit involving computer memory process; court denied summary judgment of invalidity but expressed grave concerns about validity of patents; obtained settlement after first day of jury trial)
• Lucas v. Wild Dunes Real Estate, Inc. (D.S.C.) (represented defendant in a copyright and trademark infringement action, obtained jury verdict, damages and attorneys’ fee award for client)
• Logica UK Ltd. v. CES Int’l, Inc. (U.K.) (represented defendant in copyright and software performance dispute before the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court in London, England, obtained settlement)
• All-Media Typlan v. Reuters, et al. (S.D.N.Y. and various courts throughout Europe) (represented plaintiff software developer in a copyright infringement and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act case, lead counsel coordinating and appearing in actions pending in New York, the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Switzerland)