FacultyFaculty/Author Profile
Thomas D. Pease

Thomas D. Pease

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

New York, NY, USA

Practice Areas

Intellectual Property Litigation
International Trade Commission Proceedings

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, recently serving as a member of several successful Quinn Emanuel trial teams in high profile patent cases.  Tom also specializes in licensing and competition law issues arising in the context of standard- setting activities, including defenses and claims arising out of so-called “FRAND” commitments, and has recently successfully tried several cases involving such issues.  Tom has extensive trial and hearing experience in the     IT C, having successfully tried several cases there, as well as the Eastern District of Texas, the Eastern District of Virginia, the Northern and Central Districts of California, the District of Delaware, and numerous other venues.

Tom was recognized in the IAM Patent 1000 for 2013 as “a leading light on standards-setting issues.”  The publication noted that Tom is “a dedicated, five-star attorney who zealously defends his clients’ interests” and “keeps on top of everything and delivers a fine-quality work product.”  Tom has also been “highly recommended” for his patent litigation work in The Legal 500.

Representative Clients

Tom has represented a wide range of clients including Samsung, MediaT ek, Toshiba, ST Microelectronics, Sony,  nVidia, ViaSat, Google, IBM, Freescale, Motorola, HT C, Micron, Broadcom, and Infineon in patent and trade secret-related litigation.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al.  Tom is currently serving as lead FRAND/antitrust trial counsel for Samsung in several intellectual property disputes with Apple, including two actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as well as one in the ITC, In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers, 337-T A-794 (Gildea, ALJ).   In these actions, Samsung has asserted patents against Apple smartphone devices and tablet computers that cover fundamental innovations that increase mobile device reliability, efficiency, and quality and improve user interface in mobile handsets and other products.   In many instances, these patents have been declared as potentially essential to various ET SI mobile telecommunication standards.  Apple asserted a number of so-called FRAND defenses and claims in response including breach of contract and attempted monopolization in violation of the U.S. antitrust laws.  Two trials, including a Northern District of California jury trial, have now been held and, thus far, Apple’s FRAND-based defenses and counterclaims have been uniformly defeated.  In fact, .the IT C issued an exclusion order against Apple—the first ever for Samsung and the first ever against Apple—after rejecting Apple public interest arguments based on FRAND issues.  In addition to his work on the Apple cases, Tom is also serving as counsel for Samsung in other smartphone cases involving FRAND issues against Ericsson, 337-T A-862 (Shaw, ALJ) and 37-T A-866 (Gildea, ALJ) (both recently settled) and Interdigital, 337-T A-868 (Essex, ALJ) (recently tried).

Tom is currently representing plaintiff ViaSat against defendants Loral Space & Communications and Space Systems/Loral in a patent and breach of contract lawsuit pending in the Southern District of California involving high-speed satellite technology capable of providing broadband services to consumers and businesses.  ViaSat asserts that its patented and proprietary satellite technology was misappropriated by defendants to build a competing satellite, in violation of ViaSat’s patent rights and confidentiality agreements.

Tom is currently representing plaintiff ST Microelectronics against its competitor, InvenSense, in patent lawsuits pending in the IT C, the Northern District of California, and the Eastern District of Texas involving the assertion of patents related to various design and manufacturing technologies for MEMS-based gyroscopes and accelerometers used in smartphones, tablets and other devices.

Notable Representations

In the Matter of Certain Electromechanical Systems (“Mems Devices”) and Products Containing Same, 337-T A- 876 (Gildea, ALJ) Tom recently represented plaintiff ST Microelectronics against its competitor, InvenSense, in patent lawsuits pending in the IT C, the Northern District of California, and the Eastern District of T exas involving the assertion of patents related to various design and manufacturing technologies for MEMS-based gyroscopes and accelerometers used in smartphones, tablets and other devices.  Shortly after trial in the IT C action began, the case settled favorably for ST Microelectronics.

In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same, 337-T A-753 (Essex, ALJ).  Tom served as trial counsel for MediaTek, Broadcom, nVidia, ST Microelectronics, Cisco, Motorola, Oppo Digital, and other companies in an ITC Investigation brought by Rambus for alleged infringement of six patents.  Three of the patents were asserted against memory controllers for use with JEDEC-standardized DDR-type memories, with the other three asserted against certain types of standardized SERDES interfaces including PCIe, SAT A, SAS, and Displayport.  The Hearing was held in October 2011 and resulted in ITC Initial and Final Determinations that provided a complete victory for our clients.  Not only did the ITC find each and every one of Rambus’s patents invalid, it also issued a seminal opinion concluding that unclean hands, based in part on spoliation, barred Rambus from enforcing its DDR patents.  The case settled favorably while on appeal.

Sony v. LG Electronics.  Tom successfully represented Sony in worldwide patent infringement litigations against LG and its subsidiaries, including three ITC actions (337-T A-764; 337-T A-765; 337-T A-774) 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 DT V 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 DT V patents are directed to the receipt and processing of VSB modulated carrier signals.  Zenith’s patents are allegedly essential to AT SC compliant DT Vs.

In the Matter of Certain Display Devices Including Digital Televisions and Monitors, 337-T A-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 to 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-T A-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.   Tom was the lead lawyer responsible for management of the trade secret misappropriation part of the case.  This matter settled on favorable terms, with IBM acquiring PSI.

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. T ex. 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 favorably immediately after the unclean hands finding.


St. John's University School of Law (J.D., magna cum laude, 1994)
St. John's University Law Review: Articles and Notes Editor
Member, St. T homas More Honor Society

Boston University
(B.S., Electrical Engineering, 1989) Order of the Engineer

Prior Associations

Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York: Partner, 2002-2007; Associate, 1999-2002

Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, New York: Associate, 1994-1999


Member, The State Bar of New York; Member, The State Bar of New Jersey; United States Court of Appeals: Federal Circuit; United States District Courts: Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, District of New Jersey; Registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office since 1991.


  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2019 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2019 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.