Thank you for your interest. Before you communicate with one of our attorneys, please note: Any comments our attorneys share with you are general information and not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship will exist between you or your business and O’Melveny or any of its attorneys unless conflicts have been cleared, our management has given its approval, and an engagement letter has been signed. Meanwhile, you agree: we have no duty to advise you or provide you with legal assistance; you will not divulge any confidences or send any confidential or sensitive information to our attorneys (we are not in a position to keep it confidential and might be required to convey it to our clients); and, you may not use this contact to attempt to disqualify O’Melveny from representing other clients adverse to you or your business. By clicking "accept" you acknowledge receipt and agree to all of the terms of this paragraph and our Disclaimer.
Sorin Zaharia is a litigation counsel in O’Melveny’s San Francisco office who focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation. Dr. Zaharia has represented clients on matters spanning a broad range of technologies, including digital cameras, graphical user interfaces, image and video processing, cloud computing, semiconductor microlithography, electronic circuits, light-emitting diodes, medical robotics, and pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Zaharia has worked on all aspects of patent litigation, from fact and expert discovery to claim construction, Daubert, and case-dispositive motions. He was on the trial teams in three patent litigation matters in federal district court and also participated in Section 337 ITC investigations. Dr. Zaharia has worked extensively with technical experts, has taken and defended depositions of fact and expert witnesses, argued at a claim construction hearing, and prepared witnesses for trial. As a USPTO-registered attorney, he is also familiar with PTAB post-grant practice and has challenged patents in several IPR petitions.
Before joining O’Melveny, Dr. Zaharia was an associate in the San Francisco office of another major international law firm.
Prior to attending law school, Dr. Zaharia worked as a research scientist in a prominent government laboratory. He is an author or co-author of more than thirty scientific papers published in refereed journals.
- US District Court, Central and Northern Districts of California
- US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Registered to Practice
- US Patent & Trademark Office
- University of California at Berkeley School of Law, J.D.: Senior Annual Review Editor, Berkeley Technology Law Journal
- Princeton University, Ph.D., Astrophysical Sciences/Plasma Physics
- University of Bucharest, B.Sc., Physics
- American Bar Association
- Author, Burden of Proof in Medtronic: The Federal Circuit’s Idiosyncratic Patent Jurisprudence Vetoed, Again, 30 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 777 (2015)
- Represented global manufacturer in Section 337 investigations relating to semiconductor microlithography and digital camera patents (ITC)
- Defended major digital camera manufacturer in two patent litigation cases involving graphical user interfaces, image and video capture, and face detection (C.D. Cal.); juries returned non-infringement verdicts in both cases, and also invalidated one of the patents
- Represented industry-leading virtualization and cloud computing company in patent litigation relating to virtualization (D. Del.)
- Represented pioneering medical company in patent litigation involving medical robotics (D. Del.)
- Defended start-up electronics company in patent litigation related to ultra-violet LEDs (N.D. Cal.); case settled on terms favorable to client
- Defended major biotech company in patent litigation related to blockbuster cancer therapy (N.D. Cal.); court granted summary judgment for defendant, found the case exceptional, and awarded attorney’s fees
- Represented major electronics manufacturer in litigation involving analog-to-digital converter patents (D. Del.)
- Represented global manufacturer initiating 28 U.S.C. 1782 proceedings directed to obtaining U.S. discovery for use in foreign patent litigation (N.D. Cal, D. Ariz., 9th Cir.); district courts granted discovery in both proceedings and the Ninth Circuit affirmed following expedited appeals