Joe Herriges is a principal in the Twin Cities Office of Fish & Richardson P.C, where he focuses on high-stakes patent litigation in a variety of technology areas, including automotive technology, pharmaceuticals, polymers, and retroreflective optics.
Joe has extensive standup experience in U.S. district courts, including examining and cross-examining witnesses at trial, arguing for and securing preliminary injunctive relief, and successfully arguing at Markman and summary judgment hearings on behalf of numerous clients. In addition to his U.S. district court experience, Joe leads teams in briefing before the Federal Circuit and has successfully presented arguments in that court, including in a recent competitor case involving automotive technology where he argued for and secured affirmance of a complete invalidity ruling. Finally, Joe’s practice includes representing clients before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, where he has led efforts from the petition stage through successful argument at oral hearing.
Prior to joining the firm, Joe served as a law clerk to Judge Michael J. Melloy of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. At the University of Minnesota, he was a sprinter on the Big Ten champion Minnesota swim team and was named Academic All-Big Ten.
Education
J.D. with high distinction, Order of the Coif, University of Iowa College of Law Note and Comment Editor, Iowa Law Review
B.A. with distinction, University of Minnesota Academic All Big Ten; Selmer Birkelo Scholar
Admissions
- Minnesota 2009
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Clerkships
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, 2009 – 2010
Recognitions
- Received “Attorney of the Year” group award by Minnesota Lawyer (2018)
Publications
- “The Basics of Autonomous Vehicles, Part II: Legal Challenges and Opportunities,” Fish Blog (December 2020)
- “Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up – July 2020,” Fish Litigation Blog (August 28, 2020)
- “District of Minnesota Does Not Require Deposed Entity to Identify Topics on Which Each 30(b)(6) Witness Will Testify,” Fish Litigation Blog (July 2020)
- “Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up – June 2020,” Fish Litigation Blog (July 2020)
- “Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up – April 2020,” Fish Litigation Blog (May 2020)
- “Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up – Q1 2020,” Fish Litigation Blog (May 2020)
- “Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up – Q4 2019,” Fish Litigation Blog (May 2020)
- “The Basics of Autonomous Vehicles, Part I: Artificial Intelligence,” Fish Litigation Blog (May 2020)
- “How to Protect Intellectual Property Investment in Autonomous Vehicle Technology,” Automotive World (January 2020)
- “White Paper | Technical Advancements and the Legal Considerations of Autonomous Vehicles,” Fish Litigation Blog (August 2019)
Speaking Engagements
- “Virtual Patent Marking,” Fish Litigation Webinar (August 4, 2021)
- “Autonomous Vehicles: Novel Technical and Legal Considerations,” Midwest IP Institute (October 1, 2020)
- “Autonomous Vehicles: Technical Advancements and Legal Considerations,” Fish Litigation Webinar (December 10, 2019)
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.