Nathan Hamstra

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Nathan (Nathaniel A.) Hamstra — Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (Chicago)

Specialty / focus. Hamstra's practice is intellectual property litigation with a concentration on patent disputes involving computer software and hardware, plus a substantial trade secret component. His docket is heavy on electronics and networking: cellular/LTE standard issues (Nokia/Alcatel-Lucent against the University of Minnesota over LTE patents), semiconductors and memory (Qualcomm against DSS Technology Management), graphics and inter-processor communications (Qualcomm v. Apple), camera/imaging hardware (the GoPro–Insta360 dispute), and enterprise security software (multiple Finjan suits against Blue Coat, Symantec, and Proofpoint). He litigates in federal district courts and before the ITC. Given his computer-engineering background, there is no indication of pharma or life-sciences patent work.

Side preference. The authoritative tracked record is a single plaintiff-side appearance (GoPro as complainant), and his firm profile describes him as representing both plaintiffs and defendants. The larger body of work bears that out: he has acted for patent owners/plaintiffs (Qualcomm v. Apple, Fortinet, GoPro) and for defendants in competitor and university suits (Nokia, Symantec, Samsung/Google, Blue Coat). He is not an NPE/PAE-side specialist; his client base is operating companies.

Firm context and notable matters. He has been at Quinn Emanuel since 2010 and was elected partner effective January 1, 2018. No prior firm history surfaced in searchable sources; he worked as a programmer developing e-commerce systems before law school. Verifiable results include: a complete jury verdict for Qualcomm against Apple in S.D. Cal. (No. 17-cv-1375), where the jury found all three patents infringed, rejected validity defenses, and awarded the full requested royalty of $1.41 per iPhone (reported at roughly $31 million); summary judgment of non-infringement for Nokia against Traxcell in E.D. Tex., affirmed by the Federal Circuit in a precedential opinion, 15 F.4th 1136; non-infringement verdicts for Blue Coat against Finjan; and a favorable pre-trial settlement for Fortinet against FireEye. Tracked case: GoPro, Inc. v. Insta360 (Arashi Vision), where GoPro asserted camera and mounting patents, including U.S. Patents 10,015,413, 10,574,894, and D789,435; the ITC matter (Inv. No. 337-TA-1400) reached a final initial determination by ALJ Doris Johnson Hines on July 10, 2025. I could not verify the FID's bottom line or any subsequent Commission/appeal outcome from available sources, so the result should be confirmed before being relied on.

PTAB / IPR. Hamstra is registered to practice before the USPTO (Registration No. 65,680) and his district court matters have run in parallel with PTAB proceedings—e.g., the Qualcomm v. DSS case, where the Board invalidated all asserted claims, and the Symantec v. Columbia matter, where the Board invalidated most claims of the remaining asserted family. That said, the sources reviewed show him principally in a litigation-counsel role in those proceedings; I did not find clear evidence of him as lead IPR/PGR petitioner's counsel, so his personal PTAB argument experience is not well established here.

Bar / education. Admitted in Illinois (Illinois Supreme Court certificate lists admission on November 10, 2005; bar no. 6286325) and to the Federal Circuit bar (counsel, 2008). B.S. with honors in computer engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; J.D. cum laude, University of Michigan Law School. Disambiguation note: one pro hac vice application in S.D. Cal. lists a June 11, 1990 Illinois admission date, which conflicts with the Illinois bar certificate; the 2005 date and bar number are the better-sourced figures.