Thomas C. O’Konski

Thomas C. O’Konski has devoted his practice as a trial lawyer in complex cases involving patent law, trademark and/or copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and antitrust issues for over 40 years.  He has obtained numerous verdicts in favor of his clients in actions before state and federal courts and before the United States International Trade Commission.

Tom also regularly counsels clients, including start-ups and emerging businesses, on the value of protecting intellectual property.  He encourages and works extensively with his clients to create and maintain a solid patent portfolio.  A number of Tom’s clients have been acquired by larger entities for considerable amounts dictated in large part by the value of their patent portfolios.

Tom has also testified as an expert on patent and licensing law and has served as an arbitrator on patent-related disputes for the American Arbitration Association and United States International Chamber of Commerce.

  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1970
  • Seton Hall University School of Law, 1974
  • Massachusetts
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
  • United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
  • Tom has been recognized numerous times as a Massachusetts “Super Lawyer” in intellectual property litigation.
  • Since 1995, Tom has had an AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rating with Martindale-Hubbell.
  • Tom has been selected by his peers for inclusion in the Intellectual Property Litigation practice section of the 2015-2018 editions of Best Lawyers in America.

Antitrust

Savant Systems, LLC v. Crestron Electronics, Inc. (D. Mass)

Led a team of litigators representing the plaintiff in this complex case involving antitrust, Lanham Act, and other claims against a competitor for high-end electronic automation and control products.  After more than four years of litigation, a settlement was reached involving a substantial monetary payment to the plaintiff just one month before the commencement of a jury trial.  The parties agreed that the terms of the settlement would remain confidential.

Trade Secret Misappropriation

Honeywell Inc. v. Arthur D. Little, Inc., et al. (Mass. Superior Court)

Served as co-counsel for the plaintiff in this multi-faceted trade secret misappropriation case involving crystal growth and electro-optics device technology.  A bench trial case extended for a total of 113 days over a three-year period before a settlement was reached involving a substantial payment to the plaintiff.

Patent Infringement (Patent Owner)

Cognex Corporation v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. (D. Mass.)

Served as lead counsel for the plaintiff in this case involving infringement of a patent for machine vision technology.  The case settled after defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement was denied.  The settlement involved a substantial payment to the plaintiff.

Cognex Corporation v. Nikon Corporation (D. Mass and ITC)

Served as lead counsel for the plaintiff in parallel International Trade Commission and district court proceedings involving infringement of plaintiff’s patents for machine vision technology.  The case settled after a few months of discovery with a substantial payment to the plaintiff.

Patent infringement (Accused Infringer)

Cognex Corporation v. Acacia Research Corporation, et al. (D. Minn.)

Led a team of lawyers representing Cognex in this declaratory judgment action involving a patent being asserted against Cognex’s customers by a subsidiary of Acacia.  A summary judgment was obtained asserting the patent was invalid and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct in its procurement.

JumpSport, Inc. v. Hedstrom Corporaiton, et al. (N.D. Cal.)

Represented the defendant in this patent infringement action relating to safety enclosures for trampolines.  The case was tried before a jury.  Due to our successful motions in limine, the plaintiff recovered less than 1% of the damages that it sought for the defendant’s infringement.

Teknekron Information Systems vs. Stratus Computer, Inc. (N.D. Cal.)

Represented the defendant in this patent infringement action involving a patent for a distributed computing network system using subject-based addressing.  After we uncovered evidence of the invalidity of the patent during discovery, the claim against the defendant was dismissed.

GenRad, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Company (D. Mass.)

Served as lead counsel for GenRad in this declaratory judgment action seeking to have a patent directed to an integrated circuit test system declared invalid and not infringed.  During the course of a multi-week bench trial, we uncovered evidence supporting our claim that the patent was unenforceable.  After the evidence was exposed, the case was settled with a nominal payment by GenRad.