Skip to Main Content

Thomas J. Maas

Special Counsel
Chicago Office

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 in the alcoholic beverage industry, including trademark strategy, regulation and licensing, financing, domestic and international distribution issues, and advertising and promotion. He serves as counsel to the boards of directors for multiple manufacturers in the spirits industry. In 2017, Thomas was elected to the Executive Committee of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS), the country's leading trade organization in the distilled spirits industry.

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 jury trial in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Apotex v. Cephalon.
  • Representation of client in a jury trial in the Complex Litigation Unit for Broward County, Florida. Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex.
  • 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).
  • 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 a client sought FDA approval. Alcon Research v. Apotex, 687 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Thomas J. Maas


  • 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


  • Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS), Executive Committee, Laws and Regulations Committee, and International Affairs Committee
  • LAF Young Professionals Board Executive Committee
  • American Bar Association
  • Illinois State Bar Association
  • The Chicago Bar Association