Tommy Martin

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Now let me verify the outcomes of the tracked cases and any Federal Circuit results.

Let me check bar admission, education, and prior firm history.

Tommy Martin — Baker Botts LLP (Washington, D.C.)

Focus areas. Martin's practice centers on patent and trade secret litigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission, in federal district courts, and on appeal to the Federal Circuit, with an emphasis on Section 337 investigations and downstream enforcement proceedings before U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under 19 C.F.R. Part 177. His firm bio and Chambers/Legal 500 profiles describe him as a key contact and co-chair of Baker Botts' ITC litigation practice. Documented matters span consumer floor-care appliances, toner cartridges, magnetic tape data storage, flash memory, fiber-optic equipment, semiconductor CMP slurries, DNA sequencing, adaptive-bitrate streaming, video security/situational-awareness software, online gaming (geo-fencing), NFC/battery technology, crawler cranes, and false-eyelash and other beauty/hair products. His technical background is mechanical engineering, and his prosecution docket skews to electromechanical and automotive-supply work (e.g., Sumitomo Electric, Brother, Sanden).

Side preference. The tracked appearances are entirely plaintiff-side, which is consistent with the underlying role: in both Bissell matters he represented the complainant/appellant (Bissell) — as Counsel in the Federal Circuit appeal and as of counsel in the Bissell–Tineco matter. That said, his broader published experience is genuinely mixed, including respondent-side work on mobile phones/tablets, LCD glass substrates, flash memory, fiber optics, braiding hair, aircraft-identification technology, and AGIS v. Booz Allen, alongside complainant-side work for Brother (toner cartridges), DISH (streaming), Motorola-type video analytics, and CMC-type semiconductor matters. He is not an NPE/PAE-side specialist; the client mix is operating companies and manufacturers on both sides.

Notable cases. The most prominent tracked matters are Bissell, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 24-1509 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2026) (precedential) — in which the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's final determination in full, upholding a limited exclusion order against Tineco's original wet-dry floor cleaners while clearing Tineco's redesigned products of infringement, and holding that an ITC expert may rely on source code produced in discovery but never admitted as a hearing exhibit — and the underlying Bissell v. Tineco dispute involving U.S. Patent Nos. 11,076,735 and 11,071,428. The Bissell result was a partial outcome for the client: infringement and domestic industry findings were sustained, but the redesign was held non-infringing. Separately, he was part of the Baker Botts team that secured a general exclusion order and 20 cease-and-desist orders for Brother in Certain Toner Cartridges, Inv. No. 337-TA-1174 (Dec. 2020), a 30-respondent investigation.

PTAB / IPR. He is a registered patent attorney with post-grant experience before the PTAB, including petitioner-side inter partes reviews for DraftKings and in Diogenes/Colossus v. DraftKings (D. Del./Fed. Cir./PTAB), and he has appeared as back-up counsel in IPR proceedings (e.g., IPR2013-00541). His PTAB footprint appears real but less voluminous than his ITC docket; the public record does not support characterizing him as a high-volume IPR practitioner.

Bar / education. J.D., William & Mary Law School (2007; William & Mary Law Review editor); B.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of Virginia. Admitted in the District of Columbia and Virginia; registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 57,677); admitted to the Federal Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court, D.D.C., and E.D. Va. Before law school he worked as a mechanical engineer at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard.

Firm context note: Martin has been at Baker Botts his tracked career; he was elected to the firm's partnership effective March 1, 2023, and earlier was listed as special counsel. The "of counsel"/"counsel" designations in the tracked case list are consistent with those earlier periods; no prior law firm affiliation was verifiable from public sources.