Thomas Dietrich

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Thomas E. Dietrich — patent litigation summary

Focus areas. Dietrich's patent work centers on software, computer-architecture and internet/app-based technologies. The two tracked matters both involve a patent assertion campaign by Trinity Info Media, LLC (f/k/a Trinity Intel Media) over "poll-based networking"/user-matching patents (U.S. 9,087,321 and 6,907,685) asserted against online dating and social-networking apps. Third-party litigation analytics (Ex Parte) also index him in matters tagged to computer architecture/software, semiconductors/optics, and mechanical/manufacturing technologies, consistent with his firm bio's description of patent, copyright and trademark litigation. Much of his practice is broader IP, including trademark/TTAB proceedings (e.g., Opposer's counsel for OJO Electric, LLC) and copyright and right-of-publicity work.

Side preference. The tracked data shows a defense-side patent practice: 0 plaintiff-side and 2 defendant-side appearances, both as lead counsel. That is consistent with a portfolio built around defending operating companies — the Covalent, Inc. matter (an app company) being the clearest example. One caveat: docket records in a separate patent suit, Covves, LLC v. Target Corporation, No. 2:23-cv-00640 (C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 27, 2023), list him as counsel for the plaintiff patent owner (a matter not in the tracked list). On the record reviewed, defense of accused infringers predominates.

Firm context and notable results. He is a senior litigation attorney at The McArthur Law Firm, PC, in Beverly Hills, California — a firm focused on software, app, video game and interactive entertainment clients. Before that he practiced at Crowell & Moring and BakerHostetler in Orange County, California, where he handled patent, copyright, right-of-publicity and trademark litigation. His most verifiable litigation result is Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc. (C.D. Cal. No. 2:21-cv-01360): the district court granted Covalent's Rule 12(b)(6) motion on § 101 grounds and dismissed the case with prejudice (Nov. 23, 2021), and Dietrich argued for Covalent on appeal; the Federal Circuit affirmed in a July 14, 2023 opinion, awarding costs to Covalent. In the parallel action against Hornet Networks, Inc. (C.D. Cal. No. 2:21-cv-01351), the docket reflects a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal and closure of the case in September 2021, without a merits ruling. His firm bio also credits him with defending patent suits for Experian and with helping a Fortune 500 client obtain invalidation of two patents-in-suit at the PTAB based on petitions he drafted; the client is not named in the bio.

PTAB/IPR and credentials. No specific IPR or PGR proceeding numbers naming him were verified in the sources reviewed, so his PTAB docket should be confirmed directly; his firm bio and a litigation-analytics profile indicate prior PTAB activity, and he has argued before the Federal Circuit. He was admitted to the California bar in December 2007 (No. 254282) and is also admitted in Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin, plus the Seventh Circuit and the Central and Eastern Districts of California and the Eastern District of Texas. He holds a B.A. from the University of Arizona and a J.D. from UC Hastings College of the Law (2007), where he served on the Hastings Law Journal. He should not be confused with Blake Thomas Dietrich, an IP litigator in Dallas, or with Thomas J. Dietrich, an inventor named on unrelated patents.