Thomas A. Broughan III

TOM BROUGHAN focuses on IP litigation in district courts involving high-stakes patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims. Tom has deep experience both in district courts and related forums, including the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the International Trade Commission, and arbitration tribunals. Tom has been lead counsel in a number of IPR and PTAB proceedings, and has worked on over 80 IPRs. Tom is an experienced trial lawyer, and has examined witnesses before judges and juries as well as presented argument to district judges, the PTAB, and the Federal Circuit. 

Tom has a deep technical and scientific background that enables him to quickly engage with and understand many technologies. Tom frequently works with engineers, scientists, and doctors to analyze complex technical issues and translate them into simple concepts accessible by judges and juries. His matters have involved a variety of technologies, such as medical devices, spinal cord stimulation systems, pharmaceuticals, software, cryptography, signal processing, gaming, digital rights management, payment systems, and cellular communications standards. Tom is recognized by Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America® for Litigation — Intellectual Property and Patent Law (2026) and by Legal 500 United States for Trade Secrets Litigation (2025).

Prior to joining Sidley, Tom served as a law clerk to Judge Edward Damich of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, DC. Tom also was a law clerk to Special Master Dee Lord who handled claims involving vaccine injuries. Tom’s work included evaluation and analysis of complex medical and pharmaceutical issues. Prior to attending law school, Tom worked for several years as a software developer.

Tom’s representative matters include:

• Nevro Corp. v. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research et al. – Represented Nevro in an arbitration and district court action (N.D. Cal.) involving a breach of contract relating to patent and licensing issues. Obtained an injunction in the Northern District of California against Mayo’s continued breach of contract. Following an arbitration hearing that included the examination of 19 witnesses, the arbitrator found in favor of Nevro on all counts. The arbitrator also ordered Mayo to pay Nevro’s fees for the California action.
• I-Mab Biopharma v. Inhibrx, Inc. (D. Del.): Represented I-Mab in trade secret misappropriation case involving bispecific antibodies. I lead the damages team for plaintiff I-Mab. A jury trial was held in late 2024 with the jury finding in favor of the defendants on a subset of the trade secrets, with a later bench trial to address I-Mab’s remaining trade secret claims. The parties reached a settlement in early 2025. 
• PRCM Advisors LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp. (S.D.N.Y) – Represented Pine River in asserting trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act for Two Harbors’ misappropriation of software and other trade secrets related to mortgage REITs.
• Boston Scientific v. Nevro – Represented Nevro in three lawsuits in D. Del., numerous parallel IPRs, and at the Federal Circuit. Despite Boston Scientific asserting 20 patents and over 60 trade secrets against Nevro, Boston Scientific ultimately ended up paying Nevro $85 million to settle the litigations. These cases involved spinal cord stimulation and implantable medical device technology.
• Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Auris Health, Inc. – Represented Auris Health in a series of IPR proceedings challenging the validity of multiple Intuitive Surgical patents. Successfully invalidated multiple patents directed to robotic surgery at the PTAB. Three of those PTAB decisions were appealed to the Federal Circuit. Tom argued one of those appeals, and was part of the team that secured three straight victories in the appeals, which were all argued on the same day. The cases received the 2022 LMG Life Sciences Award for “Patent Impact Case of the Year.”
• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple – Represented Apple in three patent infringement lawsuits and numerous IPRs. The heart rate monitoring technology at issue included optical sensors, signal processing, and lenses. Successfully invalidated asserted patents at the PTAB.
• Certain Audio Processing Hardware, Software and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-1026 – Successfully defended Apple at the ITC against three patents involving audio processing and noise suppression technology. Obtained Initial Determination finding no infringement, no technical domestic industry and no standing. Commission affirmed finding of no violation based on no technical domestic industry. Also invalidated one of the asserted patents in an IPR.
• Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc.: Represented Apple in over 20 inter partes review proceedings concerning secure communications technology. Successfully invalidated almost 400 claims of VirnetX’s patents.
• ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-01112 (E.D. Tex. filed Dec. 18, 2013) (Gilstrap, J.): Represented Apple, one of the accused infringers of patents concerning digital rights management. Jury trial in 2015. Verdict of non-infringement affirmed on appeal.
• InfoBionic v. Braemar Manufacturing – Represented patent owners CardioNet and Braemar in D. Mass. and in several IPR proceedings involving mobile cardiac telemetry.
• Metavant Corp. v. CheckFree Corp. – Represented CheckFree and Fiserv, Inc. in several CBMs involving technology relating to electronic payment systems.
• Disney v. Kappos, No. 12-687 (E.D. Va): counsel for Disney in Section 145 action brought against the PTO.