Send to a friend

Tom Pease joined Quinn Emanuel in July 2007.  He concentrates his intellectual property practice on the trial of complex patent infringement actions involving a wide range of technologies including mainframe computer architectures and software, semiconductor chips (DRAM, Flash, microprocessors, DSPs, ASICs), semiconductor fabrication processes (device level, tungsten metallizations, dual damascene, lithography), semiconductor packaging technologies (lead frame, BGA, wafer level), data networks and protocols (ATM, Frame Relay, DSL, WiFi, CDMA, UMTS, 3G), ink jet and laser printers, solar cells, electroluminescent phosphors, drug-eluting stents, and pharmaceutical compositions.

In addition, Tom counsels clients on issues including patent assertion and defense analysis; the handicapping of third-party litigations; patent prosecution strategy and review; patent portfolio analysis; opinion letters; and intellectual property audits.

Tom has represented clients including Micron Technology, Inc., Infineon Technologies AG, Qimonda AG, Lucent Technologies, Agere Systems Inc., Canon Inc., IBM Corp., and Boston Scientific Corp.

Tom is currently representing IBM in a patent and antitrust action involving patents relating to IBM mainframe architecture and operating system technology.

Represented Infineon and its spinoff Qimonda in an Eastern District of Texas action involving five patents relating to semiconductor packaging technologies and antitrust claims.  The case settled favorably shortly after summary judgment arguments.

Represented Infineon in two related actions involving DRAM memory patents, the first a declaratory judgment action involving eight patents and 102 asserted claims and the second an E.D. Tex. action involving four patents.  Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement on all but two claims in the first action; both cases settled very favorably shortly thereafter.

Represented Infineon in a closely-watched patent infringement lawsuit involving SDRAM and DDR SDRAM memory chips.  During the course of a two-week jury trial, the Court granted JMOL dismissing all 57 asserted claims of the four patents-in-suit.  In addition, the jury found that the plaintiff had committed fraud on a standards body and awarded several million dollars in punitive damages.  After trial, the Court awarded the client its attorneys’ fees and issued an anti-suit injunction.  After appeal and partial remand, part of team that won bench trial resulting in dismissal of plaintiffs’ case based on unclean hands and spoliation of evidence.  Case settled very favorably after the unclean hands finding.

Represented Agere in a patent infringement action involving four patents relating to DSP technology.  The case settled very favorably after a Markman hearing.