Mark Wadrzyk

I'll research this attorney before writing the summary.

Let me dig deeper into his litigation and PTAB record.

Let me check for more PTAB activity and his earlier litigation record.

Professional Summary — Mark Wadrzyk

Note on the tracked record: The structured case list contains only one appearance — an untitled plaintiff-side matter in which Mr. Wadrzyk is listed in the role of Deputy General Counsel. That single entry is not a reliable basis for characterizing his practice, so the summary below is drawn primarily from verifiable public sources (PTAB filings, California State Bar records, and a professional organizational profile). Facts that could not be independently confirmed are flagged as such.

Role and firm context. Mr. Wadrzyk (California Bar No. 801246) is Deputy General Counsel and Global Head of Intellectual Property + Litigation at Snap Inc., a position he has held since November 2021, according to a professional organizational profile. He is registered with the State Bar of California as Registered In-House Counsel (RIHC), the status California uses for out-of-state attorneys practicing solely for a single employer. Before Snap, he spent roughly a decade at Qualcomm as Vice President and IP Division Counsel, and earlier practiced at Fish & Richardson P.C. and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP. His degree background is a B.S. in electrical/electronics/communications engineering from Northwestern University and a J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law (Illinois Institute of Technology); the engineering credential is consistent with the electronics-side patent work in his record.

Technology focus and side of the "v." His verifiable patent work is almost entirely on the defendant/respondent and petitioner side — i.e., representing technology operating companies against patent assertions, rather than prosecuting cases for NPEs or PAEs. This is consistent with the tracked plaintiff-side count only if that single entry is read as a corporate-plaintiff posture (e.g., a declaratory judgment or affirmative claim), which the record does not clarify. The technology areas are consumer electronics and standards-based coding: the 2025 Snap IPR campaign against Nokia Technologies Oy covers H.264/H.265 video coding, motion vector prediction, entropy coding, and MPEG-era codec patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,536,714; 9,036,701; 7,724,818; 8,175,148; 8,050,321; 7,532,808, among others). His Qualcomm tenure, as described in the FTC v. Qualcomm record, centered on cellular/standards-essential patent portfolio and licensing matters.

PTAB / IPR experience. This is his most clearly documented patent-litigation activity. In 2025 he signed powers of attorney as Snap's authorized officer across a substantial wave of IPRs against Nokia — including IPR2025-01014, -01114, -01263, -01338, -01345, and -01439, several filed jointly with Hisense USA Corporation. He is not counsel of record in those proceedings; Winston & Strawn attorneys (Brian E. Ferguson et al.) appear on the filings, and Mr. Wadrzyk's signature is in his in-house capacity. Outcome data available so far is unfavorable to Snap on procedural grounds: the Board issued institution denials and the Director issued discretionary denials in several of these (e.g., IPR2025-01014, -01114, and -01338, denied November 20, 2025), and IPR2025-01439 was subject to a joint motion to terminate as to Hisense in January 2026. These outcomes should be described as preliminary and ongoing, not final judgments on the merits.

Notable matters and caveats. Publicly documented items include his sworn declaration in FTC v. Qualcomm Inc. (N.D. Cal. No. 5:17-cv-00220) regarding Qualcomm's internal patent-rating practices, and his oversight role in the Apple–Qualcomm global patent disputes (including the ITC investigations) during his Qualcomm tenure — the latter is supported by the general scope of his role but I could not verify a personal appearance of record in those cases. His prior-law-firm case work at Fish & Richardson and Weil, Gotshal is asserted in a third-party professional profile and could not be corroborated through primary sources. No verdicts, Federal Circuit arguments, or settlements have been verified as personally attributable to him. On bar admissions, only the California RIHC registration is reliably sourced; any other state admissions are unverified.