Richard S. Zembek

I'll research Richard S. Zembek's professional background before drafting.

Let me verify the notable cases and PTAB experience.

Let me verify the Centripetal verdict and the Netlist case.

Richard S. Zembek — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Specialty / focus areas. Zembek is a first-chair IP litigator with an electrical engineering background whose practice centers on telecommunications, wireless/standards, computer hardware and software, semiconductors, networking, and e-commerce/Internet technologies. His firm biography and Chambers entry describe significant work on industry standards, IPR policy, patent essentiality, FRAND, and competition-law issues, alongside ITC § 337 investigations, arbitrations, and MDL/consolidated proceedings. The tracked docket is consistent with that profile: cellular and wireless licensing disputes (Qualcomm matters), cybersecurity/network threat detection (Centripetal v. Palo Alto Networks), memory and semiconductor patent suits (Netlist, Harbor Island Dynamic/NXP), and patent prosecution/due-diligence work for life-sciences and industrial clients.

Side preference. He is predominantly a defense-side litigator — 13 of 15 tracked appearances are for defendants, and Patexia's 2026 Patent Litigation Intelligence Report lists him in the top 1 percent of attorneys representing defendants (and top 1 percent overall). The two plaintiff-side entries are declaratory-judgment/offensive actions brought by operating companies (Qualcomm against FedEx; Samsung against Harbor Island Dynamic), not NPE/PAE prosecution. In other words, he defends operating companies against assertions, with occasional offensive work for large technology clients.

Firm context. Zembek is a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP in Houston, where he serves as Global Head of Technology (Head of Technology & Innovation, US). His earliest tracked patent appearance (Netlist, Inc. v. Google, Inc., as lead counsel) was at Fulbright & Jaworski, which combined with Norton Rose in 2013 to form Norton Rose Fulbright; the firm lineage in the case list reflects that merger rather than separate laterals. He is not in-house.

Notable cases and outcomes. His most prominent tracked matter is Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (E.D. Va.), where he served as trial/trial co-counsel for the defense; the January 2024 jury verdict went to Centripetal on infringement but found no willfulness and awarded a lump-sum royalty rather than a running royalty. Related Palo Alto Networks v. Centripetal IPR appeals are in the Federal Circuit, including the consolidated appeal No. 2024-2373 (affirmed by Rule 36 judgment in June 2026) and an earlier merits appeal in which the court vacated the Board's decision for failure to adequately consider copying evidence. Other tracked matters include Netlist, Inc. v. Google, Inc. et al. (lead counsel, defense), Qualcomm Incorporated v. Federal Express Corporation (Counsel of Record; part of the FedEx/Qualcomm appeal activity), CommWorks Solutions, LLC v. Qualcomm Inc. (lead counsel; the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed shortly after Qualcomm's Rule 12(b)(3) motion), Sol IP, LLC v. Qualcomm Inc., and the Harbor Island Dynamic / NXP / Samsung dispute series. His posted representative results include an ITC defense win (ALJ finding of no § 337 violation, affirmed by the full Commission, appeal dismissed) and a summary judgment of obviousness affirmed by the Federal Circuit in an e-commerce search-patent case.

PTAB / IPR experience. He is a registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 43,306) and appears regularly before the PTAB. He has served as lead counsel on petitioner-side IPRs for clients such as Priceline, Kayak, and OpenTable, and on Qualcomm-side IPRs (e.g., IPR2022-00584/585/586), and the firm notes his recognition in Patexia's PTAB Intelligence Report (top 2 percent representing petitioners in the 2022 IPR report; top 8 percent overall in 2024).

Bar / education (sourced). JD, Vanderbilt University School of Law (1996); BS, cum laude, Electrical Engineering, Union College. Admitted in Texas, the Federal Circuit, and the USPTO.

A note on sourcing: the case outcomes above are drawn from court filings, Federal Circuit opinions, the firm's own biography, and Chambers/Patexia profiles; I was unable to independently verify some specific case results (including the precise damages figures in the Centripetal verdict) within the available searches, so those details are described at the level the sources support.