In the News

Haynes and Boone Intellectual Property Practice Recognized in Chambers USA National Rankings

DALLAS – The Haynes and Boone, LLP Intellectual Property Practice broke into the national rankings in the recently published Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business 2011 annual law firm rankings.

The group was acknowledged for “its increasing presence in all aspects of IP” and for “receiving an abundance of praise for its patent work in an array of technologies, including medical devices, semiconductors, nanotechnology, oil well technology, wireless technology, software and telecom networking equipment.” Partner David McCombs was singled out for being highly regarded at the firm. >>



Recent Publications

Conformity is a Virtue: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Proposes Changes to the Duty of Disclosure to Match the Therasense Standard

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) has proposed changes to two rules that are designed to streamline the obligations of innovators and their patent practitioners to disclose information to the PTO in patent applications and reexamination proceedings. >>

Patent Reform 2011: It Could Happen to You

On June 23, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives passed House Bill H.R. 1249 (the “Leahy-Smith America Invents Act”) by a vote of 304-117. This follows on the Senate’s 95-5 passage of bill S. 23 (the “America Invents Act”) back on March 8, 2011. >>



Tom Chen

Partner

Orange County


18100 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 750
Irvine, California 92612
T +1 949.202.3030
F +1 949.202.3130

Areas of Practice

Education

  • J.D., Pepperdine University School of Law, cum laude; (top 10% of class); Editor, Pepperdine Law Review
  • Engineer Degree, Electrical Engineering, University of Southern California, Hughes Engineer's Degree Fellowship
  • M.S., Electrical Engineering, California State University, Northridge
  • B.S., Physics, University of California, Los Angeles

Bar Admissions

  • California
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Tom Chen is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the Orange County office of Haynes and Boone. Tom’s practice focuses on patent prosecution and counseling in a variety of technologies, including electrical circuits, semiconductor memories/processing, semiconductor equipment , fiber optic and wireless communications, televisions, mechanical devices, Internet related applications, microprocessors and other computer architecture. Tom also has experience in patent litigation, including matters before the International Trade Commission and district courts. He has been involved in all phases of litigation, including discovery, depositions, expert reports, and briefs.

Prior to entering law school, Tom worked in the Missile Systems Group at Hughes Aircraft. There he designed and tested logic to improve missile-tracking performance, presented logic designs internally and to the Navy, and developed, implemented, and tested missile system software and algorithms.

Memberships

  • State Bar of California
  • Orange County Bar Association
  • Orange County Patent Law Association

Online Publications

07/26/2011 - Conformity is a Virtue: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Proposes Changes to the Duty of Disclosure to Match the Therasense Standard
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) has proposed changes to two rules that are designed to streamline the obligations of innovators and their patent practitioners to disclose information to the PTO in patent applications and reexamination proceedings.

06/28/2011 - Patent Reform 2011: It Could Happen to You
On June 23, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives passed House Bill H.R. 1249 (the “Leahy-Smith America Invents Act”) by a vote of 304-117. This follows on the Senate’s 95-5 passage of bill S. 23 (the “America Invents Act”) back on March 8, 2011.

06/29/2010 - The Supreme Court Rules on Bilski: Business Method Patents Survive
On June 28, 2010, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision on Bilski v. Kappos regarding what inventions are eligible for patent protection. The decision affirms that business methods are patentable, although the specific business methods at the center of the case are not.