Professionals

Dustin Edwards

Partner

Overview
Experience
Credentials
Insights & News

Dustin is an intellectual property trial litigator with experience across a range of industries, including financial services, computer science, oil and gas, and biotechnology. Dustin is recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® (2021–2025) for Intellectual Property Litigation and in IAM Patent 1000 (2024).

Key Matters

Successfully defended a large financial institution against a patent infringement suit brought in the Western District of Texas (Waco) related to targeted advertising. The infringement allegations were aggressively contested and defended, including filing early summary judgment motions. The plaintiff agreed to a walk-away, stipulated to a covenant not to sue, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Successfully defended a large financial institution against a patent infringement suit brought in the Northern District of Texas related to mobile banking technology. After winning a favorable claim construction ruling and motions to strike the plaintiff’s post claim construction infringement theories, the plaintiff agreed to a stipulated dismissal of the case and final judgment in favor of Winston’s client in order to seek an appeal. The Federal Circuit affirmed, providing a decisive win for Winston’s client.
Mars, Inc., et al. v. TruRx LLC and True Science Holdings, LLC, et al. Trial counsel for TruRX and True Science in the Eastern District of Texas that obtained a jury verdict of non-infringement and invalidity of two Mars patents for breath-freshening dog treats; as reported by Jess Davis, “Texas Jury Invalidates Greenies Dog Treat Patents,” Law360, May 9, 2016, and Jeff Bounds, “How True Science Won a Dog (and Cat) Fight Against Mars,” The Texas Lawbook, May 16, 2016.
Frans Nooren Afd., et al. v. Amcorr Products and Services, Inc. and Dolphin Sealants, LLC. Counsel for Amcorr Products and Services, Inc. and Dolphin Sealants, LLC in patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas involving coating compositions comprising a polymer and a filler. After winning summary judgment of non-infringement for Amcorr and Dolphin, the case was eventually settled favorably.
INROCK Drilling Systems, Inc. et al. v. Darrell Klesel, et al. Counsel for INROCK Drilling Systems, Inc. in trade secret litigation in the 215th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas against six former employees and two corporate defendants involving products and services in the horizontal directional drilling industry. Successfully obtained a temporary restraining order, expedited discovery, and temporary injunction against defendants. The case was quickly developed and litigated, and was settled favorably against all defendants within three months.
MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., et al. Counsel for Motorola Mobility LLC in patent litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving microprocessor core technology.
M-I LLC. v. Chad Lee Stelly, et al. Counsel for M-I LLC., a subsidiary of Schlumberger Limited, in trade secret litigation against a subsidiary of Halliburton Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas involving completion tools for oil and gas wells.
Saxon Innovations, LLC v. Nokia Corp., et al. Counsel for Research In Motion Corporation and Research In Motion Limited (RIM) in patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving microprocessor and wireless technologies.
Minerva Industries, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., et al. Counsel for RIM in patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving telecommunications technology.
FMC Technologies, Inc. v. Vetco Gray Inc. Counsel for FMC Technologies in patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas involving subsea horizontal Christmas trees for oil and gas well production.
Varel International v. Graham Mensa-Wilmot, et al. Counsel for Varel International in a case involving theft of trade secrets. Obtained permanent injunctions, the return of all company materials, and more than one million dollars in settlement payments from the individual and corporate defendants. This case was developed and litigated rapidly, and was settled shortly after a temporary injunction hearing.
Javelin Investments, LLC v. McGinnis. Civil Action No. H-05-3379, 2007 WL 781190. slip op. (S.D. Tex. May 2, 2007). As counsel for residential homeowner, obtained summary judgment based on novel interpretation of a building owner’s alteration rights under copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 120(b)).
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Poole Chem. Co. Civ. Action No.5:04-cv-00047 (N.D. Tex. August 8, 2005), as reported in 49 ATLA L. Rep. 146, 170 (June 2006). As counsel for BNSF, obtained $1.9 million settlement in CERCLA and TSWDA suit against a chemical company involving ruptured storage tank.

Renowned for his representation of banks and financial institutions in high-stakes patent litigation, his strategic acumen and courtroom proficiency make him highly coveted in the field.

IAM Patent 1000

Capabilities

Intellectual Property

IP Licensing & Due Diligence

Patent Litigation

Litigation/Trials

Trade Secrets, Non Competes & Restrictive Covenants

Technology, Media & Telecommunications

Key Matters

Successfully defended a large financial institution against a patent infringement suit brought in the Western District of Texas (Waco) related to targeted advertising. The infringement allegations were aggressively contested and defended, including filing early summary judgment motions. The plaintiff agreed to a walk-away, stipulated to a covenant not to sue, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Successfully defended a large financial institution against a patent infringement suit brought in the Northern District of Texas related to mobile banking technology. After winning a favorable claim construction ruling and motions to strike the plaintiff’s post claim construction infringement theories, the plaintiff agreed to a stipulated dismissal of the case and final judgment in favor of Winston’s client in order to seek an appeal. The Federal Circuit affirmed, providing a decisive win for Winston’s client.
Mars, Inc., et al. v. TruRx LLC and True Science Holdings, LLC, et al. Trial counsel for TruRX and True Science in the Eastern District of Texas that obtained a jury verdict of non-infringement and invalidity of two Mars patents for breath-freshening dog treats; as reported by Jess Davis, “Texas Jury Invalidates Greenies Dog Treat Patents,” Law360, May 9, 2016, and Jeff Bounds, “How True Science Won a Dog (and Cat) Fight Against Mars,” The Texas Lawbook, May 16, 2016.
Frans Nooren Afd., et al. v. Amcorr Products and Services, Inc. and Dolphin Sealants, LLC. Counsel for Amcorr Products and Services, Inc. and Dolphin Sealants, LLC in patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas involving coating compositions comprising a polymer and a filler. After winning summary judgment of non-infringement for Amcorr and Dolphin, the case was eventually settled favorably.
INROCK Drilling Systems, Inc. et al. v. Darrell Klesel, et al. Counsel for INROCK Drilling Systems, Inc. in trade secret litigation in the 215th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas against six former employees and two corporate defendants involving products and services in the horizontal directional drilling industry. Successfully obtained a temporary restraining order, expedited discovery, and temporary injunction against defendants. The case was quickly developed and litigated, and was settled favorably against all defendants within three months.
MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., et al. Counsel for Motorola Mobility LLC in patent litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving microprocessor core technology.
M-I LLC. v. Chad Lee Stelly, et al. Counsel for M-I LLC., a subsidiary of Schlumberger Limited, in trade secret litigation against a subsidiary of Halliburton Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas involving completion tools for oil and gas wells.
Saxon Innovations, LLC v. Nokia Corp., et al. Counsel for Research In Motion Corporation and Research In Motion Limited (RIM) in patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving microprocessor and wireless technologies.
Minerva Industries, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., et al. Counsel for RIM in patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving telecommunications technology.
FMC Technologies, Inc. v. Vetco Gray Inc. Counsel for FMC Technologies in patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas involving subsea horizontal Christmas trees for oil and gas well production.
Varel International v. Graham Mensa-Wilmot, et al. Counsel for Varel International in a case involving theft of trade secrets. Obtained permanent injunctions, the return of all company materials, and more than one million dollars in settlement payments from the individual and corporate defendants. This case was developed and litigated rapidly, and was settled shortly after a temporary injunction hearing.
Javelin Investments, LLC v. McGinnis. Civil Action No. H-05-3379, 2007 WL 781190. slip op. (S.D. Tex. May 2, 2007). As counsel for residential homeowner, obtained summary judgment based on novel interpretation of a building owner’s alteration rights under copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 120(b)).
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Poole Chem. Co. Civ. Action No.5:04-cv-00047 (N.D. Tex. August 8, 2005), as reported in 49 ATLA L. Rep. 146, 170 (June 2006). As counsel for BNSF, obtained $1.9 million settlement in CERCLA and TSWDA suit against a chemical company involving ruptured storage tank.