People People

People

Tommy Martin
Tommy Martin
Partner | Practice Group Chair – ITC Litigation (Firmwide)
[email protected]
Tommy Martin
Tommy Martin
Partner
[email protected]
Details
Overview
Overview Admissions & Affiliations Experience News Thought Leadership Awards and Community
Practices
Customs IP Enforcement
E-Commerce IP Enforcement
EDVA Rocket Docket Litigation
Intellectual Property
Intellectual Property Litigation
Intellectual Property Management
International Trade Commission (ITC)
Patent Prosecution
PTAB Trials
Industries
Energy
Technology

Overview

Clients look to Tommy Martin to protect and grow market share in a competitive and rapidly expanding landscape of imports and e-commerce. His combination of International Trade Commission (ITC), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), e-commerce, and district court experience gives clients a full-spectrum strategy for enforcing and defending intellectual property rights wherever the threat originates.

Tommy is the firmwide Chair of Baker Botts’ ITC Litigation practice, which is based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. He represents clients in high-stakes patent and trade secret disputes before the ITC, CBP, U.S district courts, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as well as on major digital platforms, such as Amazon.com, the Apple App Store, and Alibaba.com. His most notable experience in this regard is with the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) process and Amazon's Brand Registry “report a violation” portal.

Tommy also counsels clients in all phases of patent prosecution, including post-grant prosecution before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). He has drafted, filed, and prosecuted hundreds of patent applications in a diverse field of technologies. He also advises clients on patent portfolio development, management, and enforcement, including counseling emerging companies at all stages of funding and development.

Through his intellectual property practice, Tommy has gained deep knowledge and experience in the fields of alternative energy, computer hardware, computer software, telecommunications, life sciences, and complex machinery.

Prior to attending law school, Tommy worked as a Mechanical Engineer for the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. He served as a lead engineer on aircraft carrier overhaul projects with a particular focus on steam and hydraulic power in aircraft launch and recovery systems.

Admissions & Affiliations

  • District of Columbia Bar
  • Virginia State Bar
  • United States Patent and Trademark Office
  • United States Supreme Court
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • United States International Trade Commission

Education

  • J.D., William and Mary Law School
    Editor, William and Mary Law Review
  • B.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of Virginia

Experience

  • Certain Power Converters, Circuit Board Assemblies, and Computing Systems Containing the Same (ITC Investigation No. 1484) – Representing multiple defendants in multi-patent Section 337 investigation before the ITC concerning power converters used in data center servers, artificial intelligence and cloud computing systems
  • Certain Balloon Dilation Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof (ITC Investigation No. 1449) – Representing defendant in multi-patent Section 337 investigation before the ITC concerning balloon dilation devices used for the treatment of the sinus system
  • Interactive Games v. DraftKings, Inc. (D. Mass.) – Representing defendant in multi-patent litigation in the District of Massachusetts concerning mobile gaming technology
  • Malikie Innovations Ltd. et al v. Brother Industries, Ltd. et al. (W.D. Tenn.) – Represented defendant in multi-patent litigation in the Western District of Tennessee concerning Wi-Fi and wireless communication standards
  • Malikie Innovations Ltd. et al v. Brother Industries, Ltd. et al. (W.D. Tenn.) – Represented defendant in multi-patent litigation in the Western District of Tennessee concerning Wi-Fi and wireless communication standards
  • Certain Wireless Communication Devices and Components Thereof (ITC Investigation No. 1480) – Represented respondent in multi-patent Section 337 investigation before the ITC concerning mobile phones, tablets, and wireless components
  • NEXGEL, Inc. v. Kiss Nail Products, Inc. (E.D. Penn.) – Represented defendant in declaratory judgment litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania concerning artificial eyelash technology
  • KISS Nail Products, Inc. v. Ardell International, Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Represented plaintiff in patent litigation in the Central District of California concerning artificial eyelash technology
  • KISS Nail Products, Inc. v. Velour Cosmetics, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented plaintiff in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas concerning artificial eyelash technology
  • KISS Nail Products, Inc. v. Original Additions (Beauty Products) Ltd d/b/a Eylure (E.D. Tex.) – Represented plaintiff in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas concerning artificial eyelash technology
  • Certain Glass Substrates for Liquid Crystal Displays, Products Containing the Same, and Methods for Manufacturing the Same (ITC Investigation Nos. 337-TA-1433 and 1441) – Represented respondents in multi-patent Section 337 investigation before the ITC concerning LCD technology
  • Airspace Systems, Inc. v. Dedrone Holdings, Inc. (E.D. Va.) – Representing defendants in multi-patent litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia concerning aircraft identification technology
  • AGIS Software Development LLC v. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented defendant in multi-patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas concerning situational awareness technology
  • Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1415 and 1415 Enforcement / CBP Part 177) – Represented respondent in multi-patent Section 337 investigation and enforcement proceeding before the ITC and Part 177 proceeding before CPB concerning synthetic braiding hair
  • BISSEL, Inc. v. ITC (Fed. Cir.) – Represented appellant in appeal to Federal Circuit from a Section 337 ITC ruling concerning wet-dry surface cleaning devices
  • Lashify, Inc. v. Pro Lash, Inc. et al. (D. Ut.) – Representing defendant in multi-patent and trade dress infringement litigation concerning false eyelash products
  • DISH Technologies LLC v. Yanka Industries, Inc. (D. Del.) – Representing plaintiff in multi-patent infringement litigation in the District of Delaware concerning adaptive bitrate streaming technology
  • DISH Technologies LLC v. BritBox LLC (S.D. NY) – Representing plaintiff in multi-patent infringement litigation in the Southern District of New York concerning adaptive bitrate streaming technology
  • DISH Technologies LLC v. fuboTV Media Inc. (D. Del.) – Representing plaintiff in multi-patent infringement litigation in the District of Delaware concerning adaptive bitrate streaming technology
  • Lashify, Inc. v. ITC (Fed. Cir.) – Represented intervenor in appeal to Federal Circuit from a Section 337 ITC ruling concerning false eyelash products
  • Lashify, Inc. v. Urban Dollz LLC et al. (C.D. Cal.) – Represented defendant in false advertising, trademark infringement, tortious interference and patent infringement litigation concerning false eyelash products
  • DraftKings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC (PTAB) – Represented petitioner in inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB involving patents directed to the use of geo-fencing in online gaming
  • Diogenes Limited & Colossus (IOM) Ltd. v. DraftKings Inc. (D. Del. / Fed. Cir. / PTAB) – Represented defendant in multi-patent litigation, as a petitioner in inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB, and as defendant in appeal to the Federal Circuit the involving features of online gaming
  • Certain Video Security Equipment and Systems, Related Software, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1281) – Represented complainant in multi-patent Section 337 investigation before the ITC concerning smart video analytics
  • E-Z Ink, Inc. et al. v. Brother Industries, Ltd. (E.D. Va.) – Represented defendant in declaratory judgment litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia concerning toner cartridge technologies
  • Chu v. Universal Air Conditioner Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented defendant in design patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas concerning automotive air compressors
  • Certain Fitness Devices, Streaming Components Thereof, and Systems Containing Same (ITC Investigation Nos. 337-TA-1265 and 1265 Enforcement / Part 177) – Represented complainant in multi-patent Section 337 investigation and enforcement proceeding before the ITC and Part 177 proceeding before CBP concerning adaptive bitrate streaming technology
  • Certain Artificial Eyelash Extension Systems, Products, and Components Thereof (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1226) – Represented multiple respondents in multi-patent 337 investigation before the ITC concerning false eyelash technologies
  • Cabot Microelectronics Corporation v. Dupont de Nemours, Inc. et al. (D. Del.) – Represented plaintiff in multi-patent infringement litigation in the District of Delaware concerning semiconductor manufacturing technologies
  • Certain Chemical Mechanical Planarization Slurries and Components Thereof (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1204 / Part 177) – Represented complainant in multi-patent 337 investigation before the ITC and Part 177 proceeding before CBP concerning semiconductor manufacturing technologies
  • Certain High-Density Fiber Optic Equipment and Components Thereof (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1194 / Part 177) – Represented respondent in multi-patent 337 investigation before the ITC and Part 177 proceeding before CBP concerning fiber optic technologies
  • Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1174 / Part 177) – Represented complainant in multi-patent 337 investigation before the ITC and multiple Part 177 proceedings before CBP concerning toner cartridge technologies
  • Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing Same (II) (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1076) – Represented complainant in multi-patent 337 investigation before the ITC concerning magnetic tape data storage technologies
  • Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1058) – Represented respondent in multi-patent 337 investigation before the ITC concerning magnetic tape data storage technologies
  • Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1036) – Represented respondent in multi-patent 337 investigation before the ITC concerning magnetic tape data storage technologies
  • Certain Flash Memory Devices and Components Thereof (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1034) – Represented respondent in multi-patent 337 investigation before the ITC concerning power consumption and data addressing in flash memory devices
  • Single-Molecule Nucleic Acid Sequencing Systems and Reagents, Consumables, and Software for Use with Same (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1032) – Represented respondent in multi-patent 337 investigation before the ITC concerning DNA sequencing technology
  • Sony Corporation v. FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation et al. (S.D. Fla.) – Represented defendant in in multi-patent infringement litigation in the Southern District of Florida concerning magnetic tape data storage technologies
  • Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing Same (ITC Investigation Nos. 337-TA-1012 and 1012 Enforcement / Part 177) – Represented complainant in multi-patent 337 investigation and enforcement proceeding before the ITC and multiple Part 177 proceedings before CBP concerning magnetic tape data storage technologies
  • Brother Industries, Ltd. et al. v. Linkyo Corp. (C.D. Cal.) – Represented plaintiff in declaratory judgment litigation in the Central District of California concerning toner cartridge technologies
  • Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) – Represented defendant in patent infringement litigation in the Northern District of California concerning telecommunications technology
  • Zix Corporation v. Echoworx Corporation (E.D. Tex. / N.D. Tex.) – Represented plaintiff in patent infringement litigation in the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas concerning data encryption technology
  • Ultratec, Inc. et al. v. Sorenson Communications, Inc. et al. (W.D. Wis.) – Represented defendants in multi-patent infringement litigation in the Western District of Wisconsin, and as a petitioner in inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB, concerning captioned telephone technology
  • Certain Electronic Products, Including Products With Near Field Communication (“NFC”) System Level Functionality and/or Battery Power-Up Functionality, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-950) – Represented respondent in multi-patent 337 investigation before the ITC concerning NFC technology and battery technology
  • Manitowoc Cranes, LLC v. Sany America, Inc. et al. (E.D. Wis.) – Represented plaintiff in multi-patent infringement and trade secret litigation in the Eastern District of Wisconsin concerning crawler crane counterweight technology
  • Certain Crawler Cranes and Components Thereof (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-887) – Represented complainant in multi-patent and trade secret 337 investigation before the ITC concerning crawler crane counterweight technology
  • Protegrity Corp. v. Safenet, Inc. (D. Conn.) – Represented defendant in patent infringement litigation in the District of Connecticut concerning data encryption technology
  • NXP BV v. Research In Motion Ltd., et. al. (M.D. Fla.) – Represented defendant in multi-patent infringement litigation in the Middle District of Florida concerning integrated circuit and wireless communication technology
  • Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-804) – Represented four of the named respondents in multi-patent 337 investigation before the ITC concerning LED lighting technology
  • Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-803) – Represented respondent in multi-patent 337 investigation before the ITC concerning DRAM memory technology
  • Greenkeepers of Delaware, LLC/Greenkeepers, Inc. v. Taylor Made Golf Co., Inc. et al. (E.D. Pa.) – Represented plaintiff in patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania concerning outwardly angled golf cleats
  • Nexans Inc. v. General Cable Corp. (E.D. Pa.) – Represented defendant and counter claimant in patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania concerning defendant's patents directed to paired electrical cables
Thought Leadership
See More Thought Leadership
13 January 2026 Client Updates 2025 EDVA Commercial Litigation Roundup
30 April 2025 External Article Amazon Teams Up With IP Owners to Sue Infringers
10 March 2025 Client Updates AWS Servers Alone Won’t Establish Patent Venue in Virginia, Court Rules
January 2025 External Article Commission Issues GEO, LEOs, and CDOs to Defaulting Respondents with Split on Whether CDOs Should Issue as to Certain Defaulting Respondents
06 November 2024 Speeches & Presentations Increasing Popularity of 'Schedule A' Litigations
23 October 2024 Speeches & Presentations Recent Trends in IP Litigation
01 August 2024 External Article Lawmakers Discuss the Appropriate Role of the Commission in the U.S. IP System
May 2024 External Article Schedule A Cases Can Provide Quick, Cost-Effective Relief Against Widespread Intellectual Property Theft on Online Marketplaces
May 2024 External Article CAFC Affirms Commission’s Finding of No Violation Based on Lack of Domestic Industry
February 2024 External Article ALJ Bhattacharyya Finds No Violation on Multiple Grounds Arising from Claim Construction, But Finds Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement Satisfied
January 2024 External Article Commission Issues LEO, GEO, and CDOs to Defaulting Respondents But Debates Whether Evidence of Inventory and Domestic Operations Is Necessary Before Issuing a CDO
November 2023 External Article Commission Vacates Claim Construction and Finds Claims Indefinite and Invalid for Lack of Enablement and Written Description
13 January 2026 Client Updates 2025 EDVA Commercial Litigation Roundup
30 April 2025 External Article Amazon Teams Up With IP Owners to Sue Infringers
10 March 2025 Client Updates AWS Servers Alone Won’t Establish Patent Venue in Virginia, Court Rules

Awards and Community

Recognized as a Washington D.C. Super Lawyer-Rising Star, 2014-2017