Ryan B. Chirnomas

Partner

P 202-721-8204
F 202-721-8250

Ryan Chirnomas focuses his practice on patent prosecution before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, specializing in biotechnology, pharmaceutical, chemical, and mechanical engineering inventions. Ryan uses effective communication and problem-solving skills in order to help clients obtain strong patent protection in a cost-efficient manner. He is also experienced at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, where he has successfully advocated for reversal of rejections in numerous ex parte oral hearings. Ryan also provides clients with guidance by preparing freedom-to-operate, non-infringement, and validity opinions.

Specifically, Ryan’s practice encompasses a wide range of technologies including:

Recombinant DNA technologies
Antibodies
Diagnostics
Pharmaceuticals
Resin compositions
Optical fibers and waveguides
Medical devices
Engines and transmissions
Electric motors and pumps

During law school, Ryan worked as a student attorney in the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic at American University’s Washington College of Law, where he applied intellectual property law to the public interest.

Before pursuing a career in intellectual property, Ryan was a researcher at the University of Arizona’s Laboratory of Mammary Gland Biology. During this time, Ryan investigated the influence of environmental toxins on the expression of the BRCA1 gene, a DNA repair gene tied to breast and ovarian cancers, and co-authored three academic papers on this topic.

When not practicing law, Ryan’s hobbies and interests include historic automobiles, golfing, and listening to music on vintage hi-fi equipment.

“Biotech 2012: Myriad and Mayo” Japan Patent Attorneys Association, Bio-Pharma
Study Group, Tokyo, Japan, 2012.
“AIA Provisions That Every Bio/Pharma Practioner Should Know About”, Japan Patent Attorneys Association, Bio-Pharma Study Group, Tokyo, Japan, 2012.
“Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Practice”, Japan Intellectual Property
Association, Washington D.C., 2011
“Recent Developments in U.S. Biotech Patent Law 2011” Japan Patent Attorneys
Association, Bio-Pharma Study Group, Tokyo, Japan, 2011.
“Gene Patenting: The Myriad Genetics Case” Japan Patent Attorneys Association,
Bio-Pharma Study Group, Tokyo, Japan, 2010.
“Expedited Examination” Japan Intellectual Property Association, Washington, D.C., 2009
“Recent CAFC Decisions” Japan Intellectual Property Association, Tokyo, Japan, 2007.

Patent Term Extension under 35 U.S.C. §156 is Limited to the FDA-Approved Active Ingredient and Salts or Esters thereof—but not Metabolites or Compounds Sharing an Active Moiety, CAFC Alert, May 13, 2020
Post-filing examples, even if made by different method than prior art, may be relied upon to show inherency, particularly if patent owner fails to show that inherent feature is absent in prior art, CAFC Alert, January 21, 2020
No obviousness where hindsight argument relied upon “cherry-picked” data, CAFC Alert, September 11, 2019
More Diagnostic Patent Claims Fall—Despite following USPTO Guidelines, CAFC Alert, May 3, 2019
In widely watched biotech case, skepticism by others in the art and other factors give rise to a lack of a reasonable expectation of success, and thus a lack of
interference-in-fact, CAFC Alert, December 17, 2018
Post-filing clarification of an ambiguous feature in a pre-filing reference is not sufficient to establish inherent properties of the feature in the earlier publication, CAFC Alert, July 31, 2018
CAFC relies on extrinsic evidence to define a claim term and to demonstrate inherency., CAFC Alert, February 23, 2018
Drug patent survives invalidity challenge based on lack of teaching or suggestion in the art, teaching away, unexpected results and long-felt need, CAFC Alert, August 15, 2017
Derivation not demonstrated by conception of an idea different from claimed invention, even where the idea would make the claimed invention obvious, CAFC Alert, April 5, 2017
When inventors are wrong, a certificate of correction can set things right—if the
specification is robust, CAFC Alert, January 7, 2016
Presenting Extrinsic Evidence At District Court Does Not Guarantee Review For Clear Error On Appeal, CAFC Alert, June 11, 2015
CAFC Redefines the Singular Phrase “a patient” as a Plural Patient Population, CAFC Alert, November 18, 2014
“Double Trouble:The Expanding Application of The Judicial Doctrine of
Obviousness-type Double Patenting”, AIPLA Biotech Buzz, Biotech Patent Education Subcommittee, June 2014., June 30,2014
“CAFC holds ‘Dolly the Sheep’ Claims Ineligible, But Leaves Door Open To Claims
Reciting Clones ‘Markedly Different’ From Nature” CAFC Alert, May 21, 2014
“Beware Of Relying On A Single Example, Since It May Limit Claim Scope”, CAFC
Alert, October 17, 2013
“CAFC Draws a Line in the Sand as to Adding ‘Boundary’ Lines; PTO Recants Earlier Design Practice”, CAFC Alert, April 3, 2013
“Saved by Therasense: Deliberate decision to withhold references not found where art was cited in foreign counterpart and domestic co-pending applications”, CAFC Alert, October 10, 2012
“Fractured CAFC panel again affirms patent eligibility of isolated DNA, and applies
Mayo”, CAFC Alert, August 21, 2012
“Federal Circuit Panel Rehears ACLU, Myriad Gene Patent Case”, IP Watchdog, July 22, 2012
“Summary of Oral Arguments in AMP v. USPTO Remand”, CAFC Alert, July 20, 2012
“CAFC defines “common sense” and warns against impermissible hindsight”, CAFC
Alert, June 6, 2012
“In a dispute over a patent licensing agreement, CAFC refuses to deny enforcement of an arbitration clause based on a technicality”, CAFC Alert, March 29, 2012
“Supreme Court strikes down diagnostic method claims as non-patent-eligible subject matter”, CAFC Alert, March 20, 2012
“Under Unusual Circumstances, CAFC Re-Affirms that Conception Does Not Require Understanding How or Why an Invention Works”, CAFC Alert, December 21, 2011
“Are Genes Patent-Eligible Subject Matter? The Myriad Case.” co-authored with Yuko Matsutoya, Pharmstage, 2011 (in Japanese)
“AMP v. USPTO: The Latest Developments”, PLI Patent Law Practice Center,
September 21, 2011
“Classen v. Biogen: CAFC Tries To Target Patent Eligibility But Misses”, PLI Patent
Law Practice Center, September 16, 2011
“AMP v. USPTO: Myriad Wins This Battle, But Will the War Continue?”, CAFC Alert,
August 16, 2011
“AMP v. USPTO: Myriad wins this battle, but will the war continue?”, PLI Patent Law Practice Center, August 1, 2011
“Boston Scientific Corp. V. Johnson & Johnson, Cordis Corp. and Wyeth, Fed. Cir.
June 7, 2011”, CAFC Alert, June 15, 2011
“AMP v. U.S.P.T.O.: Oral Argument at the Federal Circuit”, PLI Patent Law Practice
Center, April 5, 2011
“Prometheus v. Mayo: An unsurprising outcome, but a preview of the Myriad genetics case?”, JDSupra, December 20, 2010
“Goeddel v. Sugano: Fully describe your invention, don’t leave it for others to
“envision””, JDSupra, September 13, 2010
“Deoxycholate, an endogenous tumor promoter and DNA damaging agent, modulates BRCA-1 expression in apoptosis-sensitive epithelial cells: Loss of BRCA-1 Expression in colonic adenocarcinomas”, Nutrition and Cancer, 2003 (with Donato R. Romagnolo DR, Jennifer Ku, Brandon D. Jeffy, et al.), August 19,2003
“Epigenetics of breast cancer: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as risk factors”,
Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 2002 (with Brandon D. Jeffy and Donato F. Romagnolo), March 8, 2002
“Activation of the aromatic hydrocarbon receptor pathway is not sufficient for
transcriptional repression of BRCA-1: Requirements for metabolism of benzo[a]pyrene to 7r,8t-dihydroxy-9t, 10-epoxy-7,8,9,20 tetrahydrobenzo[a]pyrene”, Cancer Research, 2002 (with Brandon D. Jeffy, Ryan B. Chirnomas, Eddy J. Chen, Jean M. Gudas, and Donato F. Romagnolo), January 1, 2002