Attorney profile
Cann IP Law PLLC
The short version
Cann IP Law PLLC is a Reno patent and trademark practice serving inventors and businesses, with review feedback that is sharply divided between praise for its knowledgeable service and complaints about delays and communication.
Strengths
- Positive reviewers describe Ryan Cann as knowledgeable, professional, and friendly.
- Clients have praised the firm for being easy to work with and for providing helpful guidance to a student inventor.
- One positive review highlights great prices, suggesting perceived value for some clients.
- Listed services include patent and trademark law, federal trademark applications, and trademark application preparation.
- Some reviewers report successful patent assistance and recommend the attorney.
Considerations
- Multiple negative reviews describe missed deadlines, delayed filings, and incomplete deliverables.
- Several reviewers report difficulty reaching the office by phone or email, with slow or sparse follow-up.
- Some negative accounts allege abandoned patent or trademark filings and USPTO abandonment notices, though owner responses dispute some of these claims.
About Cann IP Law PLLC
Cann IP Law PLLC is a patent attorney office located at 1 E Liberty St Ste 600 in Reno, Nevada. The practice centers on patent and trademark law, including federal trademark applications and trademark application preparation. Its listed services and website identify it as a Patent & Trademark Law firm, making it relevant to inventors, entrepreneurs, students, and businesses seeking intellectual property assistance in the Reno area.
Across the eight available reviews, the overall rating is 3.00, and the feedback is notably mixed. Positive reviews from 2020 describe Ryan Cann as knowledgeable, professional, friendly, and easy to work with. One reviewer specifically credits the firm with helping a student secure a patent and appreciates the support provided along the way. Another positive review mentions great prices, while others highlight a pleasant working relationship and recommend the attorney. These accounts suggest that some clients value personalized guidance, accessibility for individual inventors, and assistance through the patent process.
Negative reviews from 2019, 2023, 2024, and 2025 present a different set of concerns. Multiple reviewers report missed deadlines, delayed filings, sparse contact, and incomplete deliverables. Several describe difficulty reaching the office by phone, noting that calls often go to voicemail and emails are answered eventually rather than promptly. Some negative accounts allege abandoned patent or trademark filings and mention USPTO abandonment notices. A 2025 update claims no deliverables or contact for over a year, while an earlier reviewer describes paying a deposit for a provisional patent and experiencing a timeline that extended well beyond what was initially indicated.
Owner responses on two negative reviews dispute the reviewers’ characterizations. One response states that a trademark application was filed correctly and that rejection reasons were discussed. Another says that after the client expressed dissatisfaction with the timeframe, a full refund was offered and accepted. These responses do not erase the negative accounts, but they do show that some claims are contested. The result is a review profile with no clear consensus: several clients report strong professional interactions and successful patent help, while others describe serious reliability and follow-through problems.
The office is in downtown Reno and can be reached by phone. Because the feedback is divided, the most useful takeaway is that experiences have varied widely, particularly around communication, timelines, and completed filings. Those considering the firm may want to clarify project timelines, update expectations, and document deliverables in advance.
Recurring feedback
What clients consistently mention
- Reviewer experiences are sharply mixed, with older five-star reviews praising professionalism and recent one-star reviews reporting serious service failures.
- Communication and follow-through recur as concerns in negative feedback, including missed timelines, voicemail responses, and delayed email replies.
- Patent and trademark filing outcomes are a central theme: some reviewers report successful patent help, while others allege stalled or abandoned applications.
- Perceived value and accessibility appear in positive feedback, including mentions of great prices and assistance for a student inventor.
- Owner responses contest some negative claims, creating a disputed record around filing accuracy, refunds, and responsibility for delays.
All reviews
3 out of five stars based on 8 reviews.
Login to see all reviews