Thomas A. Broughan III

TOM BROUGHAN is a trial lawyer  focused on litigation in district courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Tom has experience developing trial strategy, examining witnesses in front of judges and juries, and presenting argument at hearings. His experience also includes working on over 75 IPR and PTAB proceedings, where he has developed IPR strategy and coordinated IPRs with co-pending litigation. Tom has argued IPRs to the PTAB and to the Federal Circuit on appeal.

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, cryptography, signal processing, 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).

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:

• Boston Scientific 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.
• Boston Scientific v. Nevro – Represented Nevro in three lawsuits in D. Del., numerous parallel IPRs, and at the Federal Circuit. These cases involve 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. 

Tom has dedicated time to pro bono efforts. He has represented a criminal defendant contesting a conviction obtained after a juror was removed from the jury during deliberations. His work on that matter included representing the client at hearings, drafting pleadings, and presenting oral argument to the trial court.