Send to a friend

Tom Pease is a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office.  He concentrates his intellectual property practice on the trial of complex patent and trade secret actions involving a wide range of hardware and software technologies.  Many of these cases involve standards-setting issues as well as the interface of patent and antitrust law.  Tom has extensive experience litigating cases in the ITC, the Eastern District of Texas, the Eastern District of Virginia, the Western District of Wisconsin, the Northern and Central Districts of California, the District of Delaware, and numerous other venues.

In the current edition of The Legal 500, Tom was “highly recommended” for his patent litigation work.

Tom has represented a wide range of clients including Sony, MediaTek, Broadcom, nVidia, STMicroelectronics, Freescale, Google, IBM, Samsung, Cisco, Motorola, HTC, Micron, and Infineon in patent and trade secret-related litigation.

In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-753 (Essex, ALJ).  Tom is currently representing MediaTek, Broadcom, nVidia, STMicroelectronics, Cisco, Motorola, Oppo Digital, and other companies in an ITC Investigation brought by Rambus for alleged infringement of six patents.  Three of the patents are being asserted against memory controllers for use with JEDEC-standardized DDR-type memories.  The other three are being asserted against certain types of standardized SERDES interfaces including PCIe, SATA, SAS, and Displayport.  The Hearing is currently scheduled for October 2011.  Tom is also representing some of these companies in related district court actions brought by Rambus in the Northern District of California.

Sony v. LG Electronics.  Tom is currently representing Sony in worldwide patent infringement litigation against LG and its subsidiaries, including three ITC actions and five district court actions.  The cases include a series of both offensive and defensive actions against LG and its subsidiary, Zenith, involving digital displays, Blu-Ray players, PS3s, digital cameras, and other consumer electronic products.  Sony is asserting its DTV patents directed to closed captioning, digital video content protection, digital channel selection, scaling conversion, and a variety of menu display features and functionalities.  LG’s DTV patents are directed to the receipt and processing of VSB modulated carrier signals.  Zenith’s patents are allegedly essential to ATSC compliant DTVs.  The hearings and trial dates in the various actions are scheduled for 2012, or have not yet been scheduled.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al.  Tom is currently representing several Samsung entities in multiple defensive and offensive intellectual property disputes with Apple, including actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and in the ITC.  In Apple’s actions, Apple alleges that Samsung smartphones and tablet computers infringe trade dress and trademarks that Apple claims are embodied in its iPhone and iPad products, as well as a number of utility and design patents purportedly relating to mobile phones and tablet computers.  In Samsung’s actions, Samsung alleges that Apple’s iPhone and iPad products infringe Samsung patents relating to fundamental innovations that increase mobile device reliability, efficiency, and quality and improve user interface in mobile handsets and other products.  These cases are in their early stages.

In the Matter of Certain Display Devices Including Digital Televisions and Monitors, 337-TA-713 (Essex, ALJ).  Tom successfully represented Sony in a patent infringement action in the ITC against eleven Respondents, including Chimei Innolux Corporation and TPV Technology Limited.  The case involved technologies used in digital displays, including technology related on-screen displays, the secure transmission of digital video data, the scaling of a video input signal, the reception and processing of closed caption information, and the entry and selection of channels.  Related to this action, he also represented Sony in patent infringement actions filed by Chimei Innolux Corporation in the ITC (In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Interoperable with the Same, 337-TA-737 (Essex, ALJ), the Central District of California, the Western District of Arkansas, and the District of Delaware, involving digital display, digital camera, and video game console technology. 

Sony Corp. v. Vizio.  Tom successfully represented Sony in the assertion of its color television and monitor patents in the Central District of California against Vizio digital televisions and PC monitors.  The case settled favorably with Vizio and important Taiwan-based supplier taking a license. 

Sony Corp. v. Westinghouse Digital Electronics.  Tom successfully represented Sony in the assertion of its color television patents in the Central District of California against Westinghouse digital televisions and PC monitors.  The case settled favorably with Westinghouse taking a license and agreeing to a consent judgment. 

Bid for Position v. Google.  Tom successfully defended Google in a patent case brought by Bid for Position in the Eastern District of Virginia concerning Google's entire AdWords program.  On October 15, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment of noninfringement on behalf of Google with respect to all asserted claims.  This judgment has since been affirmed by the Federal Circuit. 

IBM v. PSI.  Tom also recently represented IBM in a patent, trade secret, and antitrust action in the Southern District of New York relating to IBM mainframe architecture and operating system technology.  The case settled on favorable terms with respect to the accused infringer, with IBM acquiring that company.

Infineon v. Mosaid.  Tom 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.  He obtained summary judgment of noninfringement on virtually all claims in the first action; both cases settled very favorably shortly thereafter.

Rambus v. Infineon.  Tom 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 Infineon its attorneys’ fees and issued an anti-suit injunction.  After appeal and partial remand, Tom was part of the team that won a bench trial resulting in dismissal of plaintiff’s case based on unclean hands and spoliation of evidence.  The case settled very favorably immediately after the unclean hands finding.