Jonathan Herstoff’s client advocacy is results driven—leveraging experience to achieve success. His unique skills in taking complex matters apart to get to the core of the argument, combined with exceptional technical expertise, deliver beneficial outcomes before courts and agencies ranging from the highest, the U.S. Supreme Court, to the specialized, including the International Trade Commission and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Cited as a “Legal Lion” by Law360, Herstoff’s legal expertise and focused approach makes a difference for his clients.
Jonathan Herstoff focuses on patent litigation, analysis of complex evidentiary and procedural rules, appellate litigation, preparation of briefs, and preparation of witnesses for trial. As an attorney at Haug Partners, Herstoff represents a variety of clients, including major pharmaceutical companies who benefit from Herstoff’s expertise in Hatch-Waxman patent litigation. He is distinctive for twice having presented oral argument before the United States Supreme Court, as well as having been involved with seven trials and numerous appeals since joining Haug Partners in 2011.
Herstoff’s first U.S. Supreme Court argument in Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) resulted in a unanimous decision in favor of his client and earned him designation as a “Legal Lion” by Law 360. In addition to his multiple cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, Herstoff has also represented clients before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, multiple U.S. District Courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Jonathan Herstoff’s education included a clerkship with Judge Arthur Gajarsa of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; an internship at the U.S. International Trade Commission; a Juris Doctor degree magna cum laude, and an L.L.M degree in Intellectual Property from the Franklin Pierce Law Center (now the University of New Hampshire School of Law); and the study of intellectual-property law in Beijing at the Tsinghua University Law School. Herstoff graduated cum laude with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry from Muhlenberg College. While an undergraduate, Herstoff pursued numerous chemistry and physics research projects, including interning at Brookhaven National Laboratory with the Pioneering High Efficiency Nuclear Interaction Experiment (PHENIX) Laboratory. Herstoff’s background in the sciences has prepared him for complex work in patent litigation.
- Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi. et al., No. 16-658 (U.S.)
- Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094 (U.S.)
- Shire Dev. LLC, et al. v. Watson Pharm., Inc., et al., No. 14-206 (U.S.)
- Bowman v. Monsanto Co., No. 11-796 (U.S.)
- Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs., LP, No. 18-916 (U.S.)
- Helsinn Healthcare SA v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., No. 17-1229 (U.S.)
- Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene’s Energy Grp., No. 16-712 (U.S.)
- Bayer HealthCare LLC v. Baxalta Inc. et al., Nos. 19-2418 and 20-1017 (Fed. Cir.)
- LCS Group, LLC, et al. v. Shire LLC, et al., Nos. 19-942 and 19-2404 (2d Cir.)
- Supernus Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharm., Inc., No. 17-2513 (Fed. Cir.)
- Supernus Pharm., Inc. v. Actavis Inc., No. 16-1619 (Fed. Cir.)
- LCS Group, LLC v. Shire LLC, et al., No. 1:18-cv-2688 (S.D.N.Y.)
- Shire Dev. LLC v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., No. 17-1696 (D. Del.)
- Shire Orphan Therapies LLC v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Civ. No. 15-1102-GMS (D. Del.)
- Supernus Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharm., Inc. et al., No. 1:15-cv-00369 (D.N.J.)
- Supernus Pharm., Inc. v. Actavis Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-04740 (D.N.J.)
- Impax Labs., Inc. v. Shire LLC, No. 1:10-cv-08386 (S.D.N.Y)
- Shire LLC v. Mickle, No. 7:10-cv-00434 (W.D. Va.)
- Shire LLC v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-00329 (D. Del.)
- Shire LLC, et al. v. Amneal Pharm. LLC et al., No. 2:11-cv-03781 (D.N.J.)
- Herstoff, Jonathan. “My Supreme Court Debut: No Room For Nervousness - Law360.” Law360 - The Newswire for Business Lawyers, Law360, 12 Dec. 2017, www.law360.com/articles/992897/my-supreme-court-debut-no-room-for-nervousness.
- Herstoff, Jonathan, and John Balaes. “Supreme Court Clarifies Patent-Exhaustion Doctrine.” Haug Partners LLP, Haug Partners LLP, 30 May 2017, www.haugpartners.com/article/summary-impression-prods-inc-v-lexmark-intl-inc/.
- Herstoff, Jonathan, and Bryan Braunel. “Supreme Court Clarifies Venue in Patent Cases.” Haug Partners LLP, Haug Partners LLP, 23 May 2017, www.haugpartners.com/article/2030/.
- Giove, Nick, and Jonathan Herstoff. “Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp., No. 2015-1574.” Haug Partners LLP, Haug Partners LLP, 21 June 2016, www.haugpartners.com/article/immersion-corp-v-htc-corp-no-2015-1574/.
- Giove, Nick, and Jonathan Herstoff. “Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446.” Haug Partners LLP, Haug Partners LLP, 20 June 2016, www.haugpartners.com/article/cuozzo-speed-techs-llc-v-lee-no-15-446/.
- Giove, Nick, and Jonathan Herstoff. “Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 2015-1232, -1234, 1239.” Haug Partners LLP, Haug Partners LLP, 12 May 2016, www.haugpartners.com/article/howmedica-osteonics-corp-v-zimmer-inc-no-2015-1232-1234-1239/.
- Herstoff, Jonathan. “SCOTUS: Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.” Haug Partners LLP, Haug Partners LLP, 15 Oct. 2014, www.haugpartners.com/article/scotus-teva-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-v-sandoz-inc/.
- “Practice Tips from First Ever Inter Partes Review Decision: Garmin v. Cuozzo”, Co-author, BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal
- A Study of GEM Foils Produced at Tech Etch, Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, Volume 6 p. 4634-4639, Oct. 26, 2007-Nov. 3, 2007
- Muhlenberg College, (B.S. Chemistry, cum laude, 2007)
- Franklin Pierce Law Center, (J.D./LL.M. Intellectual Property, magna cum laude, 2010)
- New York
- Registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- Southern District of New York
- Eastern District of New York
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. Supreme Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- American Bar Association
- New York Intellectual Property Law Association
- New York State Bar Association
- Federal Circuit Bar Association
- New York City Bar Association