Skip to main content

Anthony E. Faillaci


[email protected]



Tony brings practical experience to the firm’s intellectual property practice, having been an Electrical Engineer for years before beginning his legal career. He practices in all areas of intellectual property law with a focus on patent litigation and inter partes review. Tony has drafted infringement/non-infringement and validity/invalidity analyses, while providing technical and scientific advice to legal practitioners in ITC-337 investigations and US District Court matters, as well as assisting with expert reports, contentions, depositions, and document privilege review for outgoing and incoming productions. Tony has also assisted with the preparation of patent applications for examination and office actions and pre-suit diligence, including patent portfolio analysis, strategy, and monetization.

Before joining the firm, Tony worked as a technical specialist and assisted in legal matters resulting in multimillion-dollar settlements. He is experienced in a wide range of technologies including microelectronic design, manufacturing, telecommunications, digital imaging networks, software development, and design.

Prior to entering law, Tony acquired the technical experience that forms the foundation of his practice at IBM as an Electrical Engineer in the Systems and Technologies Group. His team was responsible for developing and testing of microprocessors and entire server central electronics complexes, such as the Cell Broadband Engine (Sony PS3), IBM Roadrunner (supercomputer for the DoE), System p, and System z.

While in law school, Tony served as the Production Editor of the Journal of Health and Biomedical Law and published two case comments.


  • Suffolk University Law School (JD, Intellectual Property)
  • Texas A&M University – College Station (BS, Electrical Engineering)


In our continuing post-TC Heartland coverage, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas recently issued an interesting decision regarding the venue analysis for car companies selling into a particular jurisdiction. In Blitzsafe Texas v. BMW, Judge Gilstrap concluded that independently owned and operated BMW dealerships count as a regular and established place of business for purposes of establishing proper venue as to BMW of North America (“BMWNA”). (The court also concluded summarily that venue was proper as to BMWNA’s foreign parent company.) BMWNA argued in the main that the four dealerships located within the district were not their regular and established places of business because the dealerships are franchised. BMWNA also argued that it is not permitted to “own or control” the dealerships within the District pursuant to the Texas Occupations Code.
Six months later, and more than 2.5 years after service of the complaint on Activision, Bungie filed IPRs challenging Worlds’ patents.
In our continued post-TC Heartland coverage, the Southern District of New York recently held that an employee’s home office in New York constituted a “regular and established place of business” in the state as required by the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
In our continued post-TC Heartland coverage, Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas recently held that venue was proper because Google exercises exclusive control over physical servers implicated by the litigation, as well as the physical space within which the server is located and maintained.
In our continuing post-TC Heartland coverage, the District of Nevada recently identified a key factor in analyzing venue challenges in patent litigation: whether the public can access the defendant corporation or its services in the respective forum.
According to the Eastern District of Texas, no. In our continued post-TC Heartland coverage, for the purpose of establishing venue, courts typically will decline to treat the place of business of one corporation as the place of the business of the other, even when the two are related, so long as a formal separation of entities is preserved.
According to a recent decision from the Southern District of New York, no.  In our continued post-TC Heartland coverage, the court in CDX Diagnostic, Inc. v. U.S. Endoscopy Group, Inc. clarified that a storage unit does not qualify as a regular and established place of business.
In another interesting development in our ongoing coverage of the application of the TC Heartland patent venue standard by lower courts, the District Court for the Western District of Texas recently determined that when a parent company ratifies its subsidiary company’s place of business, it can be considered a “regular place of business” for purposes of establishing proper venue.
In our continuing coverage of the post-TC Heartland landscape, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that venue is proper in only one district per state in In re BigCommerce, Inc., 2018-122 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (slip op.).
Further to our ongoing coverage of post-TC Heartland patent litigation, in a recent case in the Western District of Wisconsin, the court granted defendants' motion to transfer for improper venue. In doing so, it rejected the plaintiff’s contention that venue can be proper where one corporation “works closely” with another corporation resident in the jurisdiction.