Thomas E. Gorman
Tel. (415) 676-2292


University of Chicago Law School, J.D. with high honors, 2010

Columbia University, B.A., 2004


Hon. Richard A. Posner
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 2010-2011

Bar Admissions


Thomas E. Gorman

Tom Gorman’s practice focuses on white-collar criminal defense and complex civil litigation, including disputes involving intellectual property, fraud, breach of contract, and antitrust. Mr. Gorman uses his ability to quickly understand complex and often technical issues to help his team rapidly devise a winning solution. For example, Mr. Gorman’s summary-judgment briefing helped simplify a complicated patent case, resulting in a complete defense victory for his client. Mr. Gorman was also part of a trial team that won a “not guilty” defense judgment against the U.S. Department of Justice in a case where the government had sought nearly $1 billion in damages and penalties.

Before attending law school, Mr. Gorman worked as a baseball writer and consultant specializing in sabermetric analysis. He later worked for MLB’s outside counsel during Senator George Mitchell’s investigation of performance-enhancing drug use in baseball.

Cases of Note

Wyckoff v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al.: At the pleading stage, we successfully defeated a putative class action filed against Major League Baseball, its current and former Commissioners, and all 30 Baseball Clubs. The plaintiffs, two former baseball scouts, claimed that defendants had violated federal and state antitrust law by allegedly conspiring to decrease competition in the labor market for scouts. By convincing the court that the employment of baseball scouts falls within the scope of Baseball’s antitrust exemption, we successfully obtained a complete dismissal.

Ziptronix v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company: We won summary judgment of non-infringement for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and its subsidiary TSMC, North America in a long-running patent lawsuit brought by North Carolina semiconductor company, Ziptronix, Inc. Ziptronix had asserted nine patents and more than 500 patent claims directed to TSMC’s manufacturing of semiconductors for use in backside-illumination image sensors used predominantly in smartphone cameras. On behalf of TSMC, we defeated Ziptronix’s claims by arguing that the territorial limits of U.S. patent law prohibited reaching TSMC’s business transactions and manufacturing operations in Taiwan.

Miranda et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al.: We successfully defended Major League Baseball (MLB), its Commissioner and 30 Baseball Clubs from a putative class action. The plaintiffs, former minor league players, alleged that minor league baseball’s labor system violates federal antitrust law. We convinced the court to dismiss the complaint because Baseball’s antitrust exemption bars plaintiffs’ claims.

United States v. McKesson Corporation: We won a complete defense judgment in favor of McKesson after a month-long trial of a qui tam action alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statue. The trial victory allowed McKesson to avoid paying nearly $1 billion in fines, and to avoid the collateral penalties that government agencies can impose on companies found to have paid illegal kickbacks. The Justice Department’s complaint charged McKesson with paying kickbacks to a nursing home operator in the form of underpriced services, and with submitting “legally false claims” to the government. After we had the whistleblower dismissed, a key victory, we then won dismissal of related claims that the nursing home’s supplier subsidiary failed to comply with Medicare supplier standards. With the case’s scope significantly narrowed, we lead our client through a bench trial which featured 24 witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and post-trial briefing. The judge ruled in our client’s favor, vindicating McKesson and its employees. This victory was listed by the National Law Journal as one of the year's five most significant trial wins.

San Jose, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball and Allan Huber “Bud” Selig: The city of San Jose sued our client, Major League Baseball, alleging antitrust violations and various state law claims related to the Oakland Athletics possible relocation to San Jose. The lawsuit claimed that Major League Baseball and its commissioner violated state and federal laws regarding unfair business practices and anticompetitive conduct. It also challenged the exemption to antitrust laws that the U.S. Supreme Court first upheld for Major League Baseball in 1922. We successfully moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ antitrust claims, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling, and we convinced the Supreme Court of the United States to decline a petition for certiorari.

Non-Practicing Entity v. Technology Manufacturers and Patent Aggregator: When a group of technology companies refused to settle a patent infringement suit on the terms plaintiff demanded, the plaintiff filed a second suit—this time against the defendants and their defensive patent aggregator—for violation of US antitrust laws. The plaintiff’s novel theory—that defensive patent-aggregation represents a monopsony “buyer’s cartel”—would have threatened the concept of patent aggregators as a whole. Along with our co-defendants, we filed a motion to dismiss attacking plaintiff’s theory and were able to secure an early and very favorable settlement for our client. The court later granted the motion to dismiss as to the remaining defendants.

Payne et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al.: Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Major League Baseball, the Commissioner, and the 30 Clubs demanding that our clients install protective netting from foul pole to foul pole at every Major League and Minor League ballpark. We moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a single claim for relief. The court granted our motion to dismiss.


“Fast-Track Sentencing Disparity: Rereading Congressional Intent to Resolve the Circuit Split,” 77 U. Chi. L. Rev. 479 (2010) (cited by United States v. Reyes-Hernandez, 624 F.3d 405, 412 (7th Cir. 2010) and United States v. Jimenez-Perez, 659 F.3d 704, 706 (8th Cir. 2011))

Awards and Honors

University of Chicago Law School

  • Kirkland and Ellis Scholar
  • Order of the Coif
  • Articles editor, The University of Chicago Law Review
  • Vice president, Chicago Law Foundation
  • Representative, American Constitution Society

Columbia University

  • King’s Crown Gold Crown Leadership Award
Developed by Tenrec