Samuel Drezdzon is a counsel in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the Dallas-North office of Haynes and Boone.
Sam’s practice focuses on patent litigation and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He has experience in IPR proceedings involving complex technologies such as telecommunications, audio/video codecs, wireless and internet networks, and semiconductor chip fabrication. Sam’s practice also includes litigating patent cases before U.S. District Courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission as well as negotiating licensing agreements for patent portfolios declared standard essential.
Sam is a member of the firm’s pro bono committee. He is a member of the Dallas Volunteer Attorney Program, providing pro bono assistance for criminal and litigation matters, and he represents a client challenging a non-unanimous life sentence jury verdict in Louisiana.
During law school, Sam served as a judicial intern to the Honorable Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock at the U.S. International Trade Commission and as a legal intern at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. He received his master’s degree in electrical and computer engineering from Duke University; he co-invented/authored U.S. patents and journal publications directed to magnetic optical waveguides.
- Member, Optical Society of America
- Member, PTAB Bar Association
- Member, Dallas Volunteer Attorney Program – Pro Bono
- Board of Directors Member, The HUE Project
- "On Second Thoughts," co-author, IP Magazine, April 2021.
- "Optical isolator," co-inventor, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,009,942 and 8,855,451.
- "On-chip waveguide isolator based on bismuth iron garnet operating via nonreciprocal single-mode cutoff," author, Optics Express, 17, 9276-9281, 2009.
J.D., George Washington University Law School, 2012, Notes Editor, AIPLA Quarterly Journal
M.S., Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, 2009
Physics and English,
University of Wisconsin Madison, 2007, with distinction
Judicial Intern to the Honorable Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock, U.S. International Trade Commission, 2012
District of Columbia
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
In an inter partes review (IPR) or postgrant review (PGR) proceeding, a patent owner may attempt to rebut an obviousness showing by presenting evidence of secondary considerations tending to show non-obviousness. Evidence of a long-felt but unsolved need, the failure of others, unexpected results, industry skepticism, commercial success, copying, licensing, and industry praise are considered in [...]