As an engineer-turned-attorney, I protect the innovative function and appearance of your products.

Sam concentrates his practice in patent, trademark, and trade secret law. He is group leader of Howard & Howard's Intellectual Property Practice.

Over the course of his career, he has prepared and prosecuted an extraordinary array of patent applications for mechanical and electro-mechanical systems, including automotive interiors; braking, cable, pedal, seating, and steering assemblies; vehicle door and window seals; vehicle shifters; axles; climate control systems; extruders; bottle-filling machines; printing presses; garage cabinets; crash-test dummies; fiber optic cables; marine products; medical devices; and semi-automatic firearms. Sam has also prosecuted numerous computer algorithm and method-of-doing-business patent applications.

+ View More

Services

Intellectual Property

When ideas translate into products, processes, art, or authorship, we help clients protect their innovations and commercialize their work.

Credentials

Education

  • Detroit College of Law, 1998
    • J.D., cum laude
  • University of Central Florida, 1993
    • B.S., Aerospace Engineering

Memberships

  • American Bar Association
  • State Bar of Michigan
    • Intellectual Property Law Section

Admissions

  • Michigan, 1998
  • Supreme Court of the United States, 2007
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 1998
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 1998

Professional Achievements

  • Michigan Leading Lawyers, 2019
  • dbusiness, "Top Lawyers," 2012-2014; 2016
  • Managing IP, "IP Star," 2013-2015
  • Michigan Super Lawyers, 2011-2019
  • Michigan Super Lawyers, "Rising Stars," 2008
  • "Patent, Trademark, and Copyright." Michigan Institute of Continuing Legal Education Business Forms Book, Co-author, Vol. 2, 2017, Ch.13.

Experience

Representative Matters

  • Co-counsel for the patent holder in the noted KSR Int. v. Teleflex Inc. intellectual property case in which the U.S. Supreme Court made its seminal ruling concerning the issues of obviousness as applied to patent claims.

    Edit