Thomas J. Meloro is Chair of the Intellectual Property Department and a partner in the firm's Litigation Department. Tom focuses on litigation and adversarial matters concerning patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. His litigation experience has spanned across technologies and industries ranging from pharmaceuticals to telecommunications, with particular emphasis on pharmaceutical and biologic products, medical products, and consumer products. Chambers USA (2020) ranks Tom among the leading individuals practicing in the area of Intellectual Property: Patent in New York. Best Lawyers in America also recognizes Tom for his work in the area of Patent Litigation.
Tom's work includes counseling on patent validity, enforceability and infringement, as well as intellectual property issues associated with licensing, mergers and other transactions. Tom represents early-stage entities, small and large cap companies, academic institutions, private equity investors and others in such matters.
Tom has represented a variety of major life sciences and technology companies in litigation matters. In the pharmaceutical field, Tom has been lead counsel in litigations and/or PTAB proceedings involving biologic and small-molecule drug products including: trastuzumab (Herceptin), bevacizumab (Avastin), mometasone (Nasonex), EPO (Epogen), ertapenem (Invanz), oxycodone (OxyContin), adapelene/benzoyl peroxide (EpiDuo), paricalcitol (Zemplar), dexmedetomidine (Precedex), diclofenac (Cambia), lansoprazole (Prevacid Solutabs), cefdinir (Omnicef), mixed amphetamines (Adderall XR), amlodipine besylate (Norvasc), and amoxiclav (Augmentin).
In addition to his extensive first-chair experience in district court and PTAB proceedings, Tom regularly argues appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Among his recent appellate successes, Tom obtained a victory for Hospira invalidating a patent regarding Avastin, a precedential victory for Hospira involving key aspects of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, affirmance of a judgment of invalidity of a patent regarding Invanz, and affirmance of a judgment of non-infringement concerning a Nasonex patent.