Vanderbilt University Law School,
J.D., Order of the Coif, 2008
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Executive Authorities Editor
Missouri University of Science and Technology,
B.S., Computer Science, summa cum laude, 2005
US Patent and Trademark Office
US Ct Appeals, Federal Circuit
Missouri USDC, Eastern District
Illinois USDC, Northern District
Texas USDC, Eastern District
Texas USDC, Western District
Texas USDC, Northern District
Wisconsin USDC, Western District
PTAB Bar Association
Federal Circuit Bar Association
Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis
American Bar Association
Intellectual Property Law Section
Listed in The Best Lawyers in America® (by BL Rankings), 2021-2023
Included in Missouri & Kansas Super Lawyers Rising Stars (by Thomson Reuters), 2014-2022
Thompson Coburn LLP
Summer Associate, 2007
Tony's practice encompasses a broad range of intellectual property matters, including patents, trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks and other issues involving the internet.
He represents clients before the patent office in inter partes review and other post-grant proceedings, and also litigates infringement suits throughout the country. His cases involve diverse technologies, including security, telecommunications, artificial intelligence, cryptography, software and e-commerce. Tony also advises clients on infringement and validity, as well as speech-related issues on the internet.
With a background in computer science and experience in a variety of programming languages, Tony offers extensive technical knowledge to his clients, including those in the telecommunications and tech industries. He provides representation to a range of clients, from small software and internet companies to national and multi-national corporations.
Bitcoin Miner and Lancium patent power showdown in Texas
IPR estoppel on grounds similar, but not identical, to grounds that could have been raised in an IPR
The other side of IPR estoppel: When shotgun petitions backfire
IPR Estoppel: The Federal Circuit finally speaks, and affirms the broader interpretation for estoppel
Supreme Court Upholds, but Narrows, Assignor Estoppel
Will there be reform of Alice and Mayo in 2021?
A race between West Texas and Delaware for the patent venue of choice
Patent Office clarifies standard for indefiniteness in AIA post-grant proceedings
USPTO announces relief to restore priority or benefit rights for patent applicants
IPR estoppel: A broad interpretation prevails
Supreme Court holds that with respect to institution decisions, no review means no review
USPTO: Extensions under the CARES Act during COVID-19
Patents, trademarks and the COVID-19 stimulus bill
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s response to COVID-19
Federal Circuit holds that states are not entitled to sovereign immunity in inter partes review proceedings
Supreme Court nixes USPTO’s practice of partially instituting IPR challenges
The Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the IPR process
Part III: Another update on IPR estoppel in the courts and at the PTAB
PTAB offers clarification on inter partes review and state sovereign immunity
Amending claims may be getting easier in post-grant proceedings, at least for now
An update on the shifting standard for IPR estoppel
The shifting standard for IPR estoppel: Where are we now?
America Invents Act – Patent ‘reform’ but possibly not simplification
Banks and financial institutions targeted in a wave of patent lawsuits for supporting Samsung Pay
Non-practicing entities increasingly are targeting banks and financial institutions in patent litigation
Supreme Court Establishes International Copyright Exhaustion - But What About Patents?;
TC’s Inside IP, August 2013
IPR Update – A Review of Recent Developments and Emerging Issues in Inter Partes Review Practice;
Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis, February, 2019
Patent Eligibility Post Alice Corp. V. Bank International;
Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis, January, 2016
Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you (an ‘engagement letter’).
By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and, further, even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you. Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.