Inside a Houston intellectual property boutique built on patent jury trials, Markman hearings, Federal Circuit appeals, and the kind of multi-district federal practice few solo attorneys can credibly claim.
By the editors of Neuron Magazine — Houston, Texas
The cases on the wall at The Polasek Law Firm, PLLC read like a tour of more than three decades of American technology litigation. Apple. Samsung. Motorola. Honda. Huawei. LG. ZTE. Best Buy. Amazon. The opposing names change. The lawyer on the other side, in most of them, does not. Ted Polasek — founding attorney of the firm that bears his name, a 1990 graduate of South Texas College of Law, a chemical engineer by undergraduate training — has spent more than thirty years inside federal courtrooms litigating intellectual property. He has run Markman hearings, briefed and argued claim construction, taken patent cases to settlement, defended a declaratory-judgment patent action brought by Amazon, and defended Lanham Act trademark plaintiffs to Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals. He is one of the most experienced solo IP litigators in Houston, and his record, available in unusually unvarnished detail on his firm’s own case results page, is the kind of public docket that other attorneys quietly study.
This is a profile of that firm.
The Founder
Ted Polasek’s legal career began at Lorance & Thompson in 1990, a year out of South Texas College of Law and three years after earning a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Texas. By 1994, he was at Arnold, White & Durkee — the legendary Houston IP firm whose alumni populate IP boutiques across Texas to this day. In 1996, he co-founded Goldstein & Polasek. In 2002, the firm grew into Polasek, Quisenberry & Errington, LLP, where he practiced for sixteen years. In 2018, he formed Elliott & Polasek, PLLC. And in 2020, he opened The Polasek Law Firm, PLLC, where he now practices as founding attorney.
That progression — Big Houston IP to founding partner to founding attorney — is unusual. Most lawyers who do patent and trademark litigation at the level of Polasek’s case list end up partners in firms with hundreds of associates. Polasek built four firms instead. The one he runs today is a deliberate boutique: a Houston patent litigation attorney practice that handles federal IP cases across multiple districts, with the kind of one-lawyer continuity that big firms structurally cannot offer. The strategic memo, the brief, the deposition outline, the Markman argument, and the closing — at The Polasek Law Firm, those documents are written by the same person who signs them.
A Patent Litigation Record Across Districts
The representative case list at The Polasek Law Firm covers patent infringement work that spans the Eastern District of Texas, the Southern District of Texas, the Northern District of Texas, the Eastern District of Virginia, the Middle District of Florida, the Northern District of Illinois, Delaware, Oregon, Nebraska, Arizona, California, and New York. That breadth is hard for any solo lawyer to claim and harder to verify. Polasek’s is verifiable. The cases are listed by caption, by party, by court, and by technology. They include:
- The Corydoras Technologies litigation series — multiple related patent matters involving mobile phone, laptop, and tablet functionality. Polasek served as lead counsel for Corydoras as plaintiff in infringement suits against Apple, Samsung, Motorola Mobility, LG, Huawei, ZTE, and Best Buy, and as counsel defending Corydoras against the declaratory-judgment action Amazon.com Inc. v. Corydoras Technologies, LLC. All resolved by confidential settlement.
- The John B. Adrain series — image recognition and forward-collision-warning patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas between 2008 and 2016, including Adrain v. American Honda, where Polasek as lead counsel briefed and argued claim construction. Settled following the court’s claim construction ruling.
- Wet Sounds, Inc. v. Elettromedia S.R.L. — a marine and outdoor speaker patent dispute filed in the Southern District of Texas, resolved with the competitor agreeing to redesign.
- Tune Hunter, Inc. v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, et al. — Polasek’s client successfully asserted a music identification patent against cell phone manufacturers, cellular service providers, and digital music providers in the Eastern District of Texas.
- Tyger Manufacturing LLC v. Mike’s Worldwide LLC — patent dispute over pipe designs in which Polasek argued claim construction at the Markman hearing and secured favorable claim construction.
- Irwin Industrial Tool Company v. Steven J. Orosz, Jr. and Charles F. Schroeder — a declaratory-judgment patent defense for the patent owners against a large tool company in the Northern District of Illinois, resolved after a successful claim construction.
- Optimal Recreation Solutions, LLP — a golf-course distance-to-pin patent dispute litigated for years through an appeal to the Federal Circuit.
- Power Feed-Thru Systems & Connectors, LLC v. Sonic Connectors, Ltd. — oilfield tool patent infringement.
- Riles v. Amerada Hess Corporation — an offshore oil drilling platform patent in the Southern District of Texas.
The technology spans semiconductors, cellular phones, image recognition, oilfield tools, marine speakers, boat hull design, music identification, and laser levels. The forum spans nearly every district where U.S. patent cases are filed in volume. The role spans both plaintiff-side enforcement and defense.
Trademark and Lanham Act Practice
A patent attorney with three decades of trial work is not, automatically, also a trademark litigator. Polasek is both. The firm’s Trademark Litigation practice covers Lanham Act unfair competition, trademark infringement, trade dress, dilution, false designation of origin, and false representation. The published case list documents four trademark matters by name:
- Gaits of Gold, Inc. and Brenda Imus v. Circle Y Saddles, Inc. — Polasek represented Circle Y Saddles, the defendant, accused of trademark and tradename infringement, dilution, and unfair competition in the Southern District of Texas. The firm moved for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion and dismissed the case. A 12(b)(6) dismissal of a multi-count Lanham Act complaint is not a routine outcome — it requires a defense theory that identifies the pleading defects in each count, and persuades the court that no plausible amendment can save them. The firm got the dismissal.
- Biomax Cosmetics, Inc. v. Cosmax Corporation — Polasek represented the trademark owner in a Lanham Act dispute with a competitor.
- Mobili Malerba SNC, d/b/a Malerba Furniture, & Cantoni, LP v. Total Furniture, LLC — Polasek defended the defendant in a Southern District of Texas case alleging false designation of origin, false representation, trade dress infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition over furniture in commerce. After numerous hearings, the matter was resolved.
- Lufkin Industries, LLC v. Michael Frank/Houston Pump and Gear Repair/Laurel Parks — a domain name dispute. Cybersquatting under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1125(d), is a narrow and consequential area of federal IP practice. Most general commercial litigators in Houston have never handled an ACPA case. Polasek has.
The combination of Rule 12(b)(6) defense expertise, trade dress litigation, Lanham Act plaintiff representation, and an ACPA domain dispute on the books is unusual for a solo attorney. Each of those four matters reflects a different doctrinal posture inside the Lanham Act and trade dress framework. A Houston trademark attorney record that touches all of them, at the federal level, is the kind of profile a brand owner researching counsel for an infringement or cybersquatting matter notices.
Federal Circuit and Multi-District Admission
The firm’s admissions are worth flagging individually because they are unusual for a solo practice. Polasek is admitted in:
- State Bar of Texas
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston)
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- Supreme Court of Texas
- U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Three of the four Texas federal districts. The Federal Circuit. The Court of Federal Claims. Combined, those admissions cover the full footprint of federal patent litigation and the full breadth of Texas federal trademark litigation. It is the admissions list of a litigator who has spent his career inside federal courts.
Contingent-Fee Patent Litigation
The firm offers contingent-fee patent litigation as a defined practice area — a comparatively rare offering among Houston IP boutiques. Contingency representation in patent infringement requires both the underwriting discipline to evaluate which cases will pay and the litigation infrastructure to actually try them. Most firms decline patent contingency cases because the cash-flow profile is brutal. The Polasek Law Firm offers it as a published option. That posture is a credibility signal in itself: the firm has been around long enough, with verdicts and settlements on the docket, to underwrite cases on its own balance sheet.
Mediation Qualification
Polasek is qualified as an Impartial Third Party under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 154.052 — a mediation credential that some IP litigators add late in their careers to round out their practice. For clients, the upshot is dual: the same attorney can litigate aggressively and mediate skillfully, and at settlement the negotiation is informed by someone who understands both sides of the table.
Houston IP Community and Professional Activities
Polasek is a member of the Houston Bar Association, the Houston Intellectual Property Law Association, the American Bar Association, the ABA Intellectual Property Law Section, and the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA). Those memberships are the standard credentials for serious IP practitioners in Houston, but the combination — alongside three decades of active federal practice and the published case list — places him squarely in the working core of the Houston IP bar.
The Boutique Model, Continued
The Polasek Law Firm is, by design, a small operation. The firm’s litigation services, as published, cover patent infringement, trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, trade dress, Lanham Act violations, copyright infringement, and other commercial disputes. There is no leveraged-associate pyramid. There is one founding attorney with thirty-five years of federal courtroom experience and a published record that survives any due-diligence search. For corporate clients evaluating Houston IP counsel — particularly for matters that involve multi-district patent infringement, Lanham Act trademark disputes, or domain-name cybersquatting actions — the firm’s profile is built for that work.
The firm also publishes a Library of articles and commentary on current developments in patent and trademark law, an unusually active content output for a single-attorney firm and a useful place to read Polasek’s own writing on substantive IP issues.
Contact and Practice Information
The Polasek Law Firm, PLLC is located at 2401 Fountain View Drive, Suite 316, Ho
