1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Ryan Fitzgerald

Ryan Fitzgerald

Associate
Associate
cmZpdHpnZXJhbGRAY3Jvd2VsbC5jb20g
VCardLinkedIn
VCardLinkedIn

Areas of Focus

Overview

Ryan Fitzgerald is an associate in Crowell & Moring’s Chicago office, where he works on both patent prosecution and patent litigation matters.

Ryan’s experience includes drafting and prosecuting patent applications for various subject matters, including medical devices, HVAC systems, and other mechanical and electro-mechanical devices. Additionally, Ryan has experience performing legal research on a variety of intellectual property issues, including patent claim construction, trademarks, and data privacy.

During law school, Ryan served as a student legal writing instructor for the first-year legal writing program, helping teach students foundational legal research and writing skills. Ryan was a note and comment editor for the Minnesota Law Review. Ryan’s student note detailing the legal standard of Article III standing for PTAB petitioners at the Federal Circuit was published in the Minnesota Law Review. Additionally, Ryan served as a judicial extern for the Honorable Chief District Judge John R. Tunheim at the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota,  where he gained valuable insights into the practices and procedures of federal court litigation.

Before starting his legal career, Ryan was a product development engineer in the global engine engineering group of a U.S. multinational automobile manufacturer, where he served as a design and release engineer for the fuel rail system of a large displacement gasoline engine and a systems engineer for an emissions component of small and midsize turbocharged engines.

Career & Education

    • University of Notre Dame, B.S., mechanical engineering, summa cum laude, mechanical engineering, 2016
    • University of Minnesota Law School, J.D., magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, 2021
    • University of Notre Dame, B.S., mechanical engineering, summa cum laude, mechanical engineering, 2016
    • University of Minnesota Law School, J.D., magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, 2021

    • Illinois
    • Illinois

  • Professional Activities and Memberships

    • American Bar Association, Member

    Professional Activities and Memberships

    • American Bar Association, Member

Ryan's Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication....

View All Insights

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24

From the Highchair to the Courtroom: Federal Circuit Serves Up Helpful Guidance on Equitable Defenses in Childproof Placemat Patent Dispute

Blog Post | 02.22.24

Motion to Dismiss Based on Trade Secret Disclosure in a Patent for the Birds

Firm News | 3 min read | 02.08.24

ScentAir Wins Delaware Jury Verdict Against Prolitec Patent Claims

View All Insights

Practices

Ryan's Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication....

View All Insights