Thomas
H.
Reger II
- Title
- Principal
- Offices
- Dallas
- Phone Numbers
-
- Email
-
[email protected]
Overview
Described in IAM Magazine as the "last man standing in infringement duels in jurisdictions nationwide," Tom Reger argues patent, FRAND, and other intellectual property cases. With this litigation experience, he leads all aspects of the case, from the complaint through hearings and trial. Outside the courtroom, Tom has led numerous FRAND negotiations for clients around the world.
Successfully representing patent defendants across the country, Tom has won jury verdicts and summary judgments of non-infringement, invalidity, and patent exhaustion, as well as fees under Section 285. Representing plaintiffs, he has won jury verdicts of infringement, including willfulness. At the International Trade Commission, Tom has successfully defeated asserted patents before the administrative law judges and the Commission by presenting noninfringement, invalidity, domestic industry, and other defenses at the evidentiary hearing.
With respect to standard essential patents and FRAND, Tom has led cases involving many different technologies, standards, and IPR policies from ETSI/3GPP, IEEE, JEDEC, and others. He works with clients and leading experts in and out of court on essentiality analyses, FRAND valuations, and review of client and others’ compliance with IPR policies.
Tom also participated in the Lawyer on Loan program through the Dallas County District Attorney’s office. During his tenure as an assistant district attorney, he prosecuted more than 15 jury trials.
In addition to his litigation experience, Tom used his computer science degree from Texas A&M as a patent prosecutor and as a software engineer. His particular focus was in algorithm analysis, optimization, and other software design. He is well-versed in many computer languages (including Java, C, C++, SQL, HTML, COBOL, and Assembler), as well as operating systems, hardware platforms, and databases.
Tom was commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Army Reserves in December 1995. He has been married to Nicole Reger for over 20 years, and they have two children.
Experience
In the matter of Certain UMTS and LTE Cellular Communication Modules and Products Containing the Same (337-1240) and Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd., et al (Case Nos. 1707 and 1710) (D. Del.) – Lead counsel for Quectel in multi-jurisdictional dispute involving Philips’s alleged SEPs in 3G and 4G/LTE and its FRAND obligations, with the ITC affirming all asserted patents not infringed, as well as finding many of the asserted patent claims invalid.
In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (337-862) and Ericsson Inc. et al v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al (Case Nos. 894 and 895) (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Samsung in multi-jurisdictional dispute involving cellular and wireless networking technology with a focus on FRAND obligations and public interest factors at the ITC hearing.
Soar Tools, LLC v. Mesquite Oil Tools, Inc. (N.D. Tex.) – Lead counsel for Mesquite Oil Tools in patent case involving involving oil well technology; won an early dismissal along with Attorneys’ fees under 285.
Semcon v. Texas Instruments (E.D. Tex.) – Lead counsel for TI in five-patent lawsuit involving power management and direct memory access technologies, including arguing all dispositive terms for joint defense group at Markman hearing.
DeepNines Inc. v. McAfee Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented plaintiff DeepNines on patent involving network security; obtained a jury verdict of $18M on willful infringement (both direct and indirect), as well as false marking.
Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp. (C.D. Cal.) – In multi-patent litigation involving different networking technologies, won summary judgment of patent exhaustion and won jury verdict of no infringement on behalf of Emulex.
NXP v. BlackBerry et al. (M.D. Fla.) – Represented defendant BlackBerry (formerly RIM) against six asserted patents involving various technologies, including computer buses, WiFi, and semiconductor manufacturing; argued the Markman hearing that ultimately resulted in three dropped patents and a jury verdict of no infringement, and invalidity of the three remaining patents. The United States Patent and Trademark Office subsequently invalidated two of the plaintiff’s patents after inter partes review.
Touchcom Technologies Inc v. Dresser, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – Obtained summary judgment of patent invalidity for Dresser in software patent infringement suit with damages alleged to exceed $30M.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. T-Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Filed a series of four related cases concerning T-Mobile’s infringement of 14 SEPs related to 4G/LTE standards for core network equipment, as well as a declaratory judgment case regarding FRAND licensing obligations.
Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC and Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) After successfully obtaining an order severing Nokia’s counterclaims from another series of cases, defended Huawei in a series of four related lawsuits brought by Nokia alleging infringement of nine patents concerning 4G/LTE standards for cellphones and tablets.
Case Name Confidential (ITC) – Represented a Fortune 10 consumer electronics company in multi-jurisdictional dispute involving operating system, radio, touchscreen, and battery technologies.
In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (337-703) and Research In Motion v. Eastman Kodak (N.D. Tex.) – Represented RIM in multi-jurisdictional dispute, including i) respondent in ITC investigation where 2 ALJs and the Commission invalidated Kodak’s asserted patent involving camera technology and ii) as a declaratory judgment plaintiff in a multi-patent infringement action related to camera technology and data integration technology.
In the Matter of Certain Non-Volatile Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same (337-916) and In the Matter of Certain Devices Containing Non-Volatile Memory (337-922) – Represented Macronix as respondent and complainant, respectively, in investigations concerning non-volatile memory, such as flash memory.
Cheetah Omni LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Obtained favorable settlement for Huawei in multi-patent litigation involving optical networking components.
Alcatel USA Sourcing, Inc v. Microsoft Corporation (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Microsoft in multi-patent litigation involving image and video processing.
DataTern, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc. and Hertz Corporation (E.D. Tex.), DataTern, Inc. v. The Allstate Corporation et al. (E.D. Tex.), DataTern, Inc. v. Suntrust Banks, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Halliburton, Avis Budget, Hertz, and ConocoPhillips in patent infringement suits concerning middleware software that facilitates communication between an object oriented program and a relational database.
Summit 6 LLC v. Research In Motion (N.D. Tex.) – Represented RIM in a patent infringement action related to web-based media submission tools; obtained favorable settlement after Markman ruling.
SaniJet Corp. v. BeautyMall Ltd. et al. (N.D. Tex.) – Argued Markman hearing before Judge Furgeson and obtained favorable settlement for Beauty Mall in patent infringement litigation involving pipeless spa jet technology.
Landmark Graphics Corp. et al. v. Paradigm Geophysical Corp. et al. (S.D. Tex.) – Obtained favorable settlement for Plaintiffs in patent infringement litigation involving 3D seismic imaging, while defending against breach of contract, trade secret, and other counterclaims.
Choicepoint Public Records v. Seisint et al. (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County) – Represented Seisint against breach of contract, trade secret, and other allegations involving data brokerage software and related data.
In the matter of Certain UMTS and LTE Cellular Communication Modules and Products Containing the Same (337-1240) and Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd., et al (Case Nos. 1707 and 1710) (D. Del.) – Lead counsel for Quectel in multi-jurisdictional dispute involving Philips’s alleged SEPs in 3G and 4G/LTE and its FRAND obligations, with the ITC affirming all asserted patents not infringed, as well as finding many of the asserted patent claims invalid.
In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (337-862) and Ericsson Inc. et al v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al (Case Nos. 894 and 895) (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Samsung in multi-jurisdictional dispute involving cellular and wireless networking technology with a focus on FRAND obligations and public interest factors at the ITC hearing.
Soar Tools, LLC v. Mesquite Oil Tools, Inc. (N.D. Tex.) – Lead counsel for Mesquite Oil Tools in patent case involving involving oil well technology; won an early dismissal along with Attorneys’ fees under 285.
Semcon v. Texas Instruments (E.D. Tex.) – Lead counsel for TI in five-patent lawsuit involving power management and direct memory access technologies, including arguing all dispositive terms for joint defense group at Markman hearing.
DeepNines Inc. v. McAfee Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented plaintiff DeepNines on patent involving network security; obtained a jury verdict of $18M on willful infringement (both direct and indirect), as well as false marking.
Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp. (C.D. Cal.) – In multi-patent litigation involving different networking technologies, won summary judgment of patent exhaustion and won jury verdict of no infringement on behalf of Emulex.
NXP v. BlackBerry et al. (M.D. Fla.) – Represented defendant BlackBerry (formerly RIM) against six asserted patents involving various technologies, including computer buses, WiFi, and semiconductor manufacturing; argued the Markman hearing that ultimately resulted in three dropped patents and a jury verdict of no infringement, and invalidity of the three remaining patents. The United States Patent and Trademark Office subsequently invalidated two of the plaintiff’s patents after inter partes review.
Touchcom Technologies Inc v. Dresser, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – Obtained summary judgment of patent invalidity for Dresser in software patent infringement suit with damages alleged to exceed $30M.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. T-Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Filed a series of four related cases concerning T-Mobile’s infringement of 14 SEPs related to 4G/LTE standards for core network equipment, as well as a declaratory judgment case regarding FRAND licensing obligations.
Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC and Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) After successfully obtaining an order severing Nokia’s counterclaims from another series of cases, defended Huawei in a series of four related lawsuits brought by Nokia alleging infringement of nine patents concerning 4G/LTE standards for cellphones and tablets.
Case Name Confidential (ITC) – Represented a Fortune 10 consumer electronics company in multi-jurisdictional dispute involving operating system, radio, touchscreen, and battery technologies.
In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (337-703) and Research In Motion v. Eastman Kodak (N.D. Tex.) – Represented RIM in multi-jurisdictional dispute, including i) respondent in ITC investigation where 2 ALJs and the Commission invalidated Kodak’s asserted patent involving camera technology and ii) as a declaratory judgment plaintiff in a multi-patent infringement action related to camera technology and data integration technology.
In the Matter of Certain Non-Volatile Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same (337-916) and In the Matter of Certain Devices Containing Non-Volatile Memory (337-922) – Represented Macronix as respondent and complainant, respectively, in investigations concerning non-volatile memory, such as flash memory.
Cheetah Omni LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Obtained favorable settlement for Huawei in multi-patent litigation involving optical networking components.
Alcatel USA Sourcing, Inc v. Microsoft Corporation (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Microsoft in multi-patent litigation involving image and video processing.
DataTern, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc. and Hertz Corporation (E.D. Tex.), DataTern, Inc. v. The Allstate Corporation et al. (E.D. Tex.), DataTern, Inc. v. Suntrust Banks, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Halliburton, Avis Budget, Hertz, and ConocoPhillips in patent infringement suits concerning middleware software that facilitates communication between an object oriented program and a relational database.
Summit 6 LLC v. Research In Motion (N.D. Tex.) – Represented RIM in a patent infringement action related to web-based media submission tools; obtained favorable settlement after Markman ruling.
SaniJet Corp. v. BeautyMall Ltd. et al. (N.D. Tex.) – Argued Markman hearing before Judge Furgeson and obtained favorable settlement for Beauty Mall in patent infringement litigation involving pipeless spa jet technology.
Landmark Graphics Corp. et al. v. Paradigm Geophysical Corp. et al. (S.D. Tex.) – Obtained favorable settlement for Plaintiffs in patent infringement litigation involving 3D seismic imaging, while defending against breach of contract, trade secret, and other counterclaims.
Choicepoint Public Records v. Seisint et al. (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County) – Represented Seisint against breach of contract, trade secret, and other allegations involving data brokerage software and related data.
Best Lawyers in America
Best Lawyers 2015-2025
IAM Patent 1000
IAM 2012-2017
Rising Star
Super Lawyers 2005-2006, 2010-2013
Fellow
Texas Bar Foundation