Jonathan Tuminaro, Ph.D.

Representative District Court Matters:

• Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals v. Airgas Therapeutics (on behalf of plaintiff, won a $9.5M jury verdict in a patent-infringement suit relating to Mallinckrodt’s INOmax (nitric oxide for inhalation) drug product and associated nitric oxide delivery device) (D. Del.)
• Alpha Modus v. Mood Media (on behalf of defendant, obtained stipulated dismissal after filing a 101 motion to dismiss all seven asserted patents) (W.D. Tex.)
• TRUSTID, Inc. v. Next Caller, Inc. (on behalf of plaintiff, obtained jury verdict of willful false advertising including both compensatory and punitive damages) (D. Del.)
• MiiCs & Partners America, LLC et al. v. Funai Electric Co., Ltd. et al. (on behalf of defendant, obtained final judgment in favor of defendant after the court granted defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s damages expert two days before a scheduled jury trial) (D. Del.)
• Proven Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks Inc. (on behalf of defendant, obtained dismissal of district court case after filing petitions for inter partes review at PTAB) (E.D. Tex.)

Representative PTAB Matters:

• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. SitNet LLC (on behalf of petitioner, secured final written decisions finding all challenged claims—56 total claims—unpatentable in four IPRs)
• Palo Alto Networks v. Proven Networks (on behalf of petitioner, prepared and filed multiple IPRs, leading to settlement)
• Palo Alto Networks v. Sable Networks (on behalf of petitioner, prepared and filed multiple IPRs, leading to settlement)
• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC (on behalf of patent owner, successfully defended five patents that protected the Bunch O Balloons product—one of the best-selling toys in the United States)
• Ford Motor Co. v. Versata Development Group, Inc. (on behalf of patent owner, successfully obtained institution denials on all 14 PTAB challenges filed by petitioner)

Representative ITC Matters:

• Certain Road Construction Machines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1088 (represented respondent in a case relating to road milling machines)
• Certain Road Milling Machines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1067 (represented complainant in a case relating to road milling machines)
• Certain Basketball Backboard Components and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1040 (represented complainant in a case relating to basketball backboards)
• Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-984 (represented a respondent automaker in a case involving computer graphics in automobiles)
• Certain Antivenom Compositions and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-903 (represented respondent in a case involving snake antivenom)

• Best Lawyers, “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America” (2024 – 2025)
• Super Lawyers, “Rising Star – Washington D.C.” (2015 – 2019)

• J.D., George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
• Ph.D., Physics, University of Maryland
• M.S., Physics, University of Maryland
• B.S., Physics and Mathematics, Canisius College, magna cum laude

• District of Columbia
• Maryland
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
• U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
• United States Patent & Trademark Office