Site Search
Professionals 305 results
Capabilities 60 results
Practice Area
Our nationally recognized Appellate & Critical Motions (ACM) Practice delivers sophisticated legal advocacy and analysis before trial, at trial, and on appeal. From state trial courts to the U.S. Supreme Court, our ACM attorneys identify, preserve, and present the critical legal issues that can make the difference between winning and losing.
Practice Area
Trial skills matter—even in a world where few disputes ever see the inside of a courtroom. Winston has built a reputation as a trial lawyers’ firm, featuring seasoned litigators who leverage extensive courtroom experience to meet our clients’ business and legal objectives. Our long history of taking cases to trial—and winning—provides our clients with tremendous settlement leverage with their adversaries, as well as a substantial likelihood of a favorable resolution if, and when, they go to trial.
Practice Area
For decades, Winston has represented a broad array of clients in the insurance industry, including some of the world’s largest and best-known insurers. Our prowess in and understanding of the insurance industry encompasses not only its products, practices, and services, but also the increasing challenges posed by a world increasingly characterized by a fast-evolving technological landscape as well as financial, political, and environmental instability. Accordingly, Winston’s lawyers are among the most sought-after in the industry—not only by companies currently facing high-stakes litigations and investigations, but by those looking to take preventive action now in order to mitigate and manage their risk in the future.
Experience 56 results
Experience
|July 15, 2025
Winston Represented Cuadrilla Capital in the Acquisition of TigerGraph
Winston represented Cuadrilla Capital, a leading enterprise software investment firm, in the strategic investment of TigerGraph, an enterprise AI infrastructure and graph database leader. The investment will facilitate TigerGraph’s continued innovation and accelerate its business growth by positioning TigerGraph to expand its market-leading capabilities in fraud detection, entity resolution, customer 360 initiatives, supply chain management, and other mission-critical enterprise applications.
Experience
|June 25, 2025
Winston Secures Federal Circuit Affirmance of 101 Victory for Polycom
Winston secured an appellate victory for Polycom (now part of HP) when the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment on the pleadings of patent-ineligibility in a lawsuit brought by directPacket Research, Inc. Working closely with HP, Winston argued that all claims of the asserted patent were directed to the abstract idea of translation via an intermediate protocol, with no inventive concept. The Northern District of California agreed, and the Federal Circuit unanimously affirmed, adopting Winston’s arguments. Eimeric Reig argued the appeal, working with HP and the Winston team, including Kathi Vidal, Kelly Hunsaker, Sam Lerner, Matt McCullough, and David Dalke.
Experience
|May 15, 2025
Winston Secures Federal Circuit Victory for Snap Axing Image-Presentation Patents on the Pleadings
Ask Sydney sued Snap along with four large tech companies in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, asserting infringement of two related patents on methods of generating and presenting images to a user to determine the user’s interest. Working closely with Snap, Winston successfully moved to transfer the case to the Central District of California, then moved for judgment on the pleadings of patent-ineligibility under § 101 of the Patent Act. Following a hearing with multiple rounds of argument, the district court granted the motion, adopting Winston’s arguments that distinguished findings by the patent examiner during prosecution and by the Western District of Texas, which had denied § 101 motions brought by two other defendants. Ask Sydney appealed, but the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed three days after oral argument, handing Snap a decisive win invalidating all claims of both asserted patents. Eimeric Reig led the strategy and argued the appeal and motion hearing, working with Kathi Vidal and Kelly Hunsaker.
Insights & News 1,947 results
Sponsorship
|October 9, 2025
Winston & Strawn Sponsors the 45th Annual Ray Garrett Jr. Corporate & Securities Law Institute
Winston & Strawn is proud to sponsor the 45th Annual Ray Garrett Jr. Corporate & Securities Law Institute at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law in Chicago, IL.
Product Liability & Mass Torts Digest
|September 17, 2025
|4 Min Read
Supreme Court To Settle if All’s Well That Ends Well in Diversity Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist to determine whether a final order issued by a federal court may stand if an appellate court later determines the district court erred in dismissing a nondiverse defendant and denying a motion to remand.
Direct Sellers Update: Regulation, Law & Policy
|September 16, 2025
|6 Min Read
The FTC Trades Blanket Non-Compete Bans for Case-by-Case Enforcement
Direct Sellers, time to let out a sigh of relief. On September 5, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission officially dropped its appeal of a federal court’s decision striking down the FTC’s rule banning non-competes.
Other Results 32 results
Site Content
In the product liability context, epidemiology refers to the study of the incidence, distribution, and etiology of disease or harm in human populations. Epidemiological studies include a variety of different study designs, such as prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, randomized controlled trials, and meta-analysis. Epidemiology is a critical, and sometimes mandatory, element for establishing general causation.
Site Content
In the product liability context, general causation is the legal and scientific determination of whether the product in question has the inherent capability to cause the alleged injury under certain circumstances. Establishment of general causation is a critical aspect of a plaintiff’s case, and typically requires scientific evidence, such as epidemiology or toxicology, and expert testimony to establish a causal connection between the product’s design, manufacturing, or warnings and the injury or injuries at issue. As contrasted to specific causation, the focus in a general causation inquiry is on whether the product or exposure, as a general matter, can cause the type of injury claimed by the plaintiff. A general causation inquiry does not assess any facts unique to a particular plaintiff.