Site Search
Professionals 78 results
Capabilities 27 results
Practice Area
Practice Area
Brands across key sectors turn to Winston litigators to defend their reputations in advertising class actions, competitor disputes, and investigations. With litigators based in the U.S.’s busiest jurisdictions—including courts in California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas—we have deep experience and prowess in handling some of the most high-profile and business-essential advertising cases in recent history. These disputes have involved false advertising; unfair competition, unfair business practices, and unjust enrichment; copyright, trade name, and service mark infringement; consumer-protection claims; and violations of the Lanham Act.
Practice Area
We routinely help clients protect and commercialize their intellectual property (IP) assets and provide due diligence on complex technology and IP transactions. We negotiate and draft IP licenses and transfers; provide strategic guidance on optimal structures for IP and IT transactions; and evaluate copyright, trademark, and patent portfolios and provide related due diligence activities in connection with IPOs, mergers and acquisitions, private equity investments, licenses, and other corporate transactions.
Experience 11 results
Experience
|January 27, 2026
Winston & Strawn secured a decisive victory for PayPal in an intellectual property dispute brought by Irish non-practicing entity Internet Payment Patents LTD (IPPL). Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen of the Northern District of California entered final judgment in PayPal’s favor, finding all asserted patent claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and granting PayPal’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend.
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.
Experience
|January 19, 2024
Served as lead trial counsel to defend AMD in a massive ITC action brought against AMD by its competitor Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Realtek accused AMD of infringing three patents relating to integrated circuit designs. AMD faced an exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order at the ITC. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot’s decision found that all asserted claims of two of the patents were invalid for multiple reasons. For the third patent, he ruled that all asserted claims were not infringed by AMD, and that all but one of those claims were also invalid. ALJ Elliot also found that Realtek had not proven the existence of the economic prong of domestic industry—a rare outcome at the ITC. The win is significant for AMD because dozens of its product families were implicated. It also sends a signal to non-U.S. companies that the ITC’s domestic-industry requirement has teeth and cannot be assumed to exist based merely on a patentee’s alleged licenses with U.S.-based entities.
Insights & News 562 results
In the Media
|May 13, 2026
|1 Min Read
Alexander Ott Discusses ITC Litigation Funding Disclosure Proposal with Law360
Winston & Strawn partner Alexander Ott was quoted in a Law360 article discussing the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)’s proposed rule requiring disclosure of litigation funding in Section 337 intellectual property investigations. The proposed rule would require parties appearing before the ITC to disclose litigation funding arrangements and entities with financial interests or authority over litigation and settlement decisions. According to the article, the ITC stated that the information could help identify conflicts of interest and provide greater clarity in Section 337 investigations.
Article
|May 8, 2026
|4 Min Read
IP’s Real Legal Frontier With AI Is Everything Before the Output
This article was originally published in Bloomberg Law. Any opinions in this article are not those of Winston & Strawn or its clients. The opinions in this article are the authors’ opinions only.
Recognitions
|April 3, 2026
|1 Min Read
John Drosick Named Among National LGBTQ+ Bar Association’s 2026 Best LGBTQ+ Lawyers Under 40
Winston & Strawn associate John Drosick has been recognized among the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association’s 2026 Best LGBTQ+ Lawyers Under 40. Each year, the National LGBTQ+ Bar recognizes LGBTQ+ legal professionals under the age of 40 who have distinguished themselves in their field and demonstrated a profound commitment to the LGBTQ+ equality.
Other Results 29 results
Law Glossary
An original work of authorship that is fixed in a tangible form and exhibits at least a minimal amount of creativity may be protected by U.S. copyright law. Under the law, a copyright owner has various exclusive rights to use the protected work, including the right to make copies of it; create derivative works based on it; and distribute it to the public. For certain types of works, the copyright owner also has the exclusive right to publicly perform or publicly display the work.
Law Glossary
What Is the Copyright Royalty Board?
The U.S. Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) is a three-judge panel that functions as an independent unit within the Library of Congress. It performs the duties specified in the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act. The Act established statutory licenses that let approved parties utilize certain types of copyrighted works by paying a set royalty, without having to request an individual copyright license from each rights-holder. The CRB sets, and periodically adjusts, the rates and terms of the statutory licenses, and can also make determinations on the distribution of statutory license royalties collected by the U.S. Copyright Office. For example, the judges can determine, for a five-year period, the rates musical performers receive when their works are played via digital services. When licensors and licensees cannot reach rate agreements on their own, the CRB hears testimony from the various parties and then sets the rates. CRB Judges serve six-year terms. The first CRB judges were appointed by the Librarian of Congress in 2006.
Site Content
What Is Trademark Infringement?
Trademark infringement is defined as the unauthorized use of a trademark or service mark. This use can be in connection with goods or services and may lead to confusion, deception, or a misunderstanding about the actual company a product or service came from. Trademark owners can take legal action if they believe their marks are being infringed. If infringement of a trademark is proven, a court order can prevent a defendant from using the mark, and the owner may be awarded monetary relief.