Tony Beasley

Counsel

Thank you for your interest. Before you communicate with one of our attorneys, please note: Any comments our attorneys share with you are general information and not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship will exist between you or your business and O’Melveny or any of its attorneys unless conflicts have been cleared, our management has given its approval, and an engagement letter has been signed. Meanwhile, you agree: we have no duty to advise you or provide you with legal assistance; you will not divulge any confidences or send any confidential or sensitive information to our attorneys (we are not in a position to keep it confidential and might be required to convey it to our clients); and, you may not use this contact to attempt to disqualify O’Melveny from representing other clients adverse to you or your business. By clicking "accept" you acknowledge receipt and agree to all of the terms of this paragraph and our Disclaimer.

pdf

Tony Beasley focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation and has experience in many areas of technology, including semiconductors, graphic processing, memory, consumer electronics, medical devices, avionics, financial trading systems, and oil and gas drilling systems.

Admissions

Bar Admissions

  • California
  • Minnesota
  • Texas
  • Wisconsin

Court Admissions

  • US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • US District Court, Central and Northern Districts of California, District of Minnesota, Eastern and Southern Districts of Texas, and Western District of Wisconsin

Education

  • University of Wisconsin Law School, J.D.: managing editor, Wisconsin Law Review
  • DePaul University, B.S., Computer Science

Professional Activities

Board Member

  • Intellectual Property Owners Association, Damages and Injunctions Committee
  • Minnesota Hispanic Bar Association (2012-2013)

Speaker

  • “All In: Winning Strategies from the World of Patent Negotiation & Litigation,” Missouri Bar, St. Louis, Missouri (November 8, 2012)

Co-Author

  • “Testing the Cryptocurrency Patent Waters,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (April 2018)
  • “The Shifting Junction of Trade Secret Law and Noncompetes,” Law360 (August 2016)
  • “The Art of Quantification: Ensuring Success in the Damages Phase of Patent Litigation,” ExecSense (December 2012)
  • “2011: A Case Odyssey,” Law360 (March 2012)
  • “The O2 Micro Solution to the O2 Micro Conundrum,” Law360 (December 2011)
  • “The Challenge of Proof in a Semiconductor Patent Case,” Law360 (June 2011)
  • “The Sword and the Shield—How Recent Developments in Patent Damages Law Can Help Your Case as Both a Defendant and a Plaintiff,” BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal (May 2011)
  • “The Expert Disclosure Pitfalls of Rule 26(a)(2),” Law360 (May 2011)
  • “Determining Your Royalty Base Under Section 271,” Law360 (November 2010)
  • Represented an international semiconductor and consumer electronics company in a series of patent infringement cases in both U.S. district courts and the ITC involving semiconductor packaging and design and won motion to terminate the ITC matter, and a motion to transfer the district court matters, before securing a favorable settlement
  • Represented an international semiconductor and consumer electronics company in a patent infringement case involving DDR memory and won institution of Inter Partes Review of the sole asserted patent, and an early motion to stay district court litigation, before securing a dismissal with prejudice on all counts
  • Represented an international semiconductor and consumer electronics company in a patent infringement case involving optical sensors and secured a favorable settlement prior to trial
  • Represented an international consumer electronics company in a patent infringement case involving television signal processing and chipsets and secured a favorable settlement prior to trial
  • Represented an international microprocessor company in complex, multi-patent litigation involving transistor design, computer memory, and microprocessor architecture and secured a favorable, publicly reported settlement worth several hundred million dollars before trial
VIEW MORE