Thomas J. Maas

Special Counsel
Chicago Office
vCard View PDF

Thomas J. Maas concentrates his practice on resolving intellectual property disputes and has broad litigation experience in patent, antitrust, trademark, securities fraud and complex commercial cases. He has developed particular experience in the pharmaceutical industry, including patent/Hatch-Waxman, antitrust and contract litigation. Through this experience and his work with leading experts in the field, Thomas is highly knowledgeable on the intricacies of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, exclusivity periods under Hatch-Waxman and the antitrust implications of settlements in pharmaceutical patent litigation.

Thomas also counsels clients with respect to trademark strategy and disputes, with a focus on the alcoholic beverage industry. His strong experience in this field has led to creative resolutions of multiple trademark disputes both before and during litigation.

Thomas has a strong commitment to obtaining cost effective, high quality outcomes for his clients. For example, he has created and implemented custom de-duplication software solutions to reduce review and production costs on large scale document reviews, leading to hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings for clients. In cases across multiple industries and practice areas, Thomas’s development of strong legal positions for his clients has led to favorable settlements, obviating the need for expensive trial and appellate processes. He has also co-authored multiple successful appellate briefs before various federal appellate courts. 

Shown below is a selection of Thomas’s engagements.

  • Representation of client in a case pending in the Complex Litigation Unit for Broward County, Florida. Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex.
  • Representation of client in a case pending in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Apotex v. Cephalon.
  • Representation of client in connection with reversing in part the district court and invalidating six claims of US Patent No. 5,641,805, including all claims covering a follow-on product for which our client sought FDA approval. Alcon Research v. Apotex, 687 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
  • Representation of client in connection with authoring appellate brief. Westmoreland Coal v. Amick, 289 Fed. Appx. 638 (4th Cir. 2008).
  • Representation of client in connection with authoring appellate brief. F.H.-T. v. Holder, No. 12-2471 (7th Cir. 2012) (pending).


  • JD, Washington and Lee University School of Law
  • BA, University of Michigan

Bar Admissions

  • Illinois

Court Admissions

  • US District Court, Central District of Illinois
  • US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
  • US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • US District Court, Northern District of Illinois


  • American Bar Association
  • Illinois State Bar Association
  • LAF Young Professionals Board Executive Committee
  • The Chicago Bar Association
  • Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS), Laws and Regulations Committee, and International Affairs Committee
Katten Websites   Careers  |  Alumni  |  Mobile Site
Contact Us   Offices  |  Media Center  |  People  |  Email
Legal Notices   Disclaimer  |  Privacy Policy  |  Attorney Advertising
Contact Us