Biography

Thomas has over 20 years of experience representing industry leaders in life sciences. He is internationally recognized for his experience in creating, implementing and monetizing effective patent strategies. He represents public and private companies, investors and academic institutions in the life sciences arena. His portfolio of life sciences companies spans diagnostics, medical devices, life science tools and technology platforms, genomics and therapeutics.

Before joining Sullivan, Tom was a partner at several global law firms in Boston. Previously, Tom served as Vice President and General Counsel of Helicos BioSciences Corporation, where he directed and implemented patent and legal strategies and played a significant role in that company’s IPO.

Tom speaks and writes extensively on patent and licensing matters, and presents frequently at major pharma and life sciences meetings. Tom is a leader in creating monetized barriers to entry, and he is responsible for creating the foundational IP for a number of successful life sciences companies. Tom has served as an adjunct professor of law at Suffolk University Law School and most recently at MIT. He is also recognized in the 2025 edition of Best Lawyers® for Patent Law.

Education

Northwestern University School of Law (J.D.)
University of Illinois (B.A.)

Bar & Court Admissions

Massachusetts
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Registered Patent Attorney, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Awards & Honors

Best Lawyers in America® (2021-2026)
Ranked in The Legal 500 Boston Elite for Intellectual Property (2026)

Viewpoints

All Viewpoints

AI as a Legal Tool: What Companies Need to Know

Companies are increasingly turning to artificial intelligence ("AI") platforms to obtain legal information. In the intellectual property context, common uses include freedom-to-operate searches, claims drafting, and assessments of potential patent infringement exposure. A recent decision from the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York calls into question whether documents generated through certain AI platforms are entitled to protection under the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines. In United States v. Bradley Heppner, Judge Jed S. Rakoff ruled in a criminal proceeding that documents generated through an AI platform were not entitled to protection under either the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In that case, the defendant is alleged to have used a consumer version of Anthropic’s Claude AI to generate documents related to his defense. Heppner’s attorney claimed that those documents were privileged and the Government subsequently filed a motion for a ruling that the documents were not privileged. In granting the government’s motion on February 10, 2026, Judge Rakoff noted that the attorney-client privilege attaches to communications for legal advice between a client and their attorney that are intended to be, and are kept, confidential. Judge Rakoff determined that the AI-generated documents failed to meet the criteria for establishing privilege. First, the Judge pointed out that the AI documents were not communications with counsel, and the AI agent cannot be construed as legal counsel. Second, the communications in the AI-generated documents were not confidential because the communications were with a third party whose privacy policy explicitly states that users consent to Anthropic’s use of inputs and outputs for various purposes. Finally, the Judge ruled that Heppner’s use of AI was not for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Heppner’s attorney suggested that Heppner was using AI for the purpose of communicating with counsel, but the Judge noted that Heppner did not do so at the direction of counsel (which, if he had, might still not have been sufficient to be considered attorney-client communication). Key Takeaways: The use of AI to obtain legal analysis or advice might not be covered under the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines. That means that there is a risk that AI-generated documents might not be protected from disclosure to an opposing party in litigation. Even the AI queries themselves may not be privileged and may later be construed as damaging admissions. The decision in US v. Heppner is a criminal case and is a decision of a single United States District Court. It appears to be the first decision regarding the use of AI to obtain legal advice, and it is possible that other District Courts or a Court of Appeal could render a different decision. The Heppner case does not specifically address the use of AI in the context of IP litigation, but it is reasonable to assume that the principles applied in Heppner would apply to any privilege contention. However, it is possible that another District Court or an appellate court would rule differently in the context of patent issues. Judge Rakoff noted that the defendant utilized a commercial version of AI. It is possible that an enterprise version would support a stronger expectation of privacy by the user. It is unclear whether the use of AI at the direction of counsel would result in a different decision. What You Should Do: Companies should exercise caution in their use of AI to generate legal advice, documents, and the like. It is best to consult with counsel prior to undertaking the risk of using AI for legal advice. We will post further commentary as this area of the law develops.

U.S. Department of Commerce Weighs Patent Tax with Significant Implications for Innovation and Patent Strategy

On July 28, 2025, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Department of Commerce is considering a new proposal to impose a tax of 1% to 5% on the “value” of issued patents. If implemented, the tax would be in addition to the existing maintenance fees currently charged at only three times after a patent issues. Background: The Existing Patent System and Economic Incentives The patent system is a core business right enshrined in the United States Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, clause 8 grants Congress the power to “promote the progress of science and useful arts” by granting exclusivity to inventors and authors for limited times. The U.S. patent system provides a tradeoff between the government and inventors. In exchange for full public disclosure of an invention, the U.S. government provides a 20-year right of exclusivity. The rationale for this system is that without some incentive for full disclosure, ideas will be kept secret, thus inhibiting technological improvements and innovation. Key Concerns: Patent Valuation and Market Impact The proposed tax raises several practical and policy concerns. First, the proposed basis for the tax is the value of the patent, a figure that is often difficult to determine. The true value of a patent may not become apparent until it can be tied to an exclusive benefit, which may not be realized until late in the 20-year patent term. Second, most patents lack any economic value as determined by success in litigation, licensing, or sale of the patent. Any deterrent value of a patent absent hard economic data (i.e., a sale, license revenue, or damages in litigation) is speculative at best. Third, a tax on patents could reduce the number of patent applications filed, especially in cash-strapped industries such as biotechnology. A value-based tax could deter patent filings among startups and companies that lack the resources to pay increased fees without clear commercial returns. That may result in companies in the innovation economy making every effort to keep technology secret, further deterring innovation. Fourth, taxing patents may have an adverse economic impact on the United States, akin to what we have observed in Europe where patents and patent applications suffer annual taxes called “annuities.” The result of the annuities in Europe is that companies limit their filings and focus their market strategy on low-tax jurisdictions, such as the United States, where they can currently file more applications at low cost. The exclusivity that results from robust patent filing here is an incentive for companies to focus on the U.S (in addition to other market incentives). Looking Ahead While the proposal is still under consideration and no formal regulatory action has been taken, stakeholders across industries should monitor developments. A tax on the perceived value of patents is likely to have an adverse impact on innovation and negative economic consequences for the United States. If implemented, the tax could represent a fundamental shift in the cost-benefit analysis of participating in the U.S. patent system. For more information or guidance on how these potential changes could affect your business or intellectual property strategy, contact one of the Sullivan lawyers listed above.

News

All News

Drug-pricing dispute at US Supreme Court raises trade secret disclosure questions

Thomas Meyers was quoted in the article "Drug-pricing dispute at US Supreme Court raises trade secret disclosure questions," published by MLex [sub. req’d.] on June 24, 2026. The article examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s request for the solicitor general’s views in a challenge to Oregon’s drug-pricing transparency law and the broader implications for constitutional protections of trade secrets and compelled disclosure of confidential business information. Tom, who leads Sullivan's Life Sciences practice group, discussed the potential consequences of allowing governments to require companies to disclose information they consider proprietary, warning that such requirements could erode longstanding protections for trade secrets. He noted, “I don't think the government, federal or state, should have the right to force disclosure of something that's otherwise regarded as a trade secret. There's a slippery slope here. What are you going to require next?” He also highlighted the potential impact of varying state disclosure requirements on businesses, adding, “There are other states that have passed similar provisions. We don't really have sufficient guardrails around this... Every state presumably could have a different approach to this, and so companies could be stuck figuring out 50 different strategies.”

Sullivan Client SAGA Diagnostics Enters Definitive Merger Agreement With Roche

Roche Holding AG, a global leader in pharmaceuticals and diagnostics, announced that it is expanding its monitoring portfolio through its merger with Sullivan client SAGA Diagnostics AB. The transaction is valued at up to $595 million, inclusive of commercial and regulatory milestone payments. SAGA Diagnostics developed a next-generation, tumor-informed molecular residual disease (MRD) platform. Sullivan supported the company in developing and implementing its patent strategy. The team advising SAGA Diagnostics included partner Thomas Meyers and associates Sung Min Yoon and Eleesya Cordes. Read the full press release here.

Thomas Meyers

Thomas Meyers

Biography

Thomas Meyers

Drug-pricing dispute at US Supreme Court raises trade secret disclosure questions

Sullivan Client SAGA Diagnostics Enters Definitive Merger Agreement With Roche

Sullivan & Worcester Ranked in The Legal 500 Boston Elite 2026

44 Sullivan & Worcester Lawyers Named as “Best Lawyers” Award Recipients

Sullivan & Worcester Adds Five Lawyer Team to Intellectual Property Practice

Thomas Meyers

AI as a Legal Tool: What Companies Need to Know

U.S. Department of Commerce Weighs Patent Tax with Significant Implications for Innovation and Patent Strategy

Featured

Stay Connected

Careers