Tommy Martin

Partner

[email protected]

Washington, D.C.

P: +1.202.639.7752
F: +1.202.585.4093
Tommy Martin

Tommy Martin is an IP litigator in Baker Botts' Washington, D.C. office. His practice centers around complex patent and trade secret litigation before the International Trade Commission (ITC), U.S district courts, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Mr. Martin represents clients in all phases of pre-trial, trial, post-trial and appeal, as well as in Part 177 proceedings before U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Mr. Martin also represents clients in IP disputes arising on e-commerce platforms. His experience in this regard includes initiating and responding to take-down requests on the Apple App Store and under the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) process. It also includes assisting clients navigate Amazon's Brand Registry, Seller Central, and other processes for reporting infringement and policy violations.

Mr. Martin is a registered patent attorney that has counseled clients in all phases of patent prosecution, including post-grant prosecution before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB).

Mr. Martin has drafted, filed, and prosecuted hundreds of patent applications in a diverse field of technologies.

In addition, Mr. Martin counsels clients on patent portfolio development, management, and enforcement. This includes counseling emerging tech companies at all stages of funding and development.

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

Mr. Martin's pro bono practice includes representing under served individuals with child custody and landlord-tenant matters in the District of Columbia Courts, and immigration matters in U.S. Immigration Courts.

Prior to attending law school, Mr. Martin 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.

Related Experience

  • 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
  • Lashify, Inc. v. ITC (Fed, Cir.) – Representing intervenor in appeal 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) – Representing 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.) – Represented defendant in eight-patent infringement litigation, and as a petitioner in inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB, 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 No. 337-TA-1265) – Represented complainant in multi-patent Section 337 investigation 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) – 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) – 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) – 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 No. 337-TA-1012) – Represented complainant in multi-patent 337 investigation 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. Ca.) – 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. Ca.) – 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-1058) – 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

Awards & Community

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

News

results Page of

Thought Leadership

results Page of