Site Search
Professionals 114 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
|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
|August 15, 2024
Winston Achieves Historic No-Damages Summary Judgment for Microsoft in Patent Case
Exafer sued Microsoft for patent infringement over certain components of the Azure networking infrastructure. After successfully excluding Exafer’s damages expert, Winston secured a rare summary judgment of no damages, resulting in a complete victory for Microsoft. The court found Exafer lacked evidence sufficient to support any non-speculative award of damages, resolving all claims in Microsoft's favor. This is the first no-damages summary judgment in a W.D. Tex. patent case and one of the few in patent cases overall, earning the team a mention in American Lawyer’s Litigator of the Week column.
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 701 results
Article
|November 21, 2025
|3 Min Read
The Human Touch Lawyers Need to Succeed in an AI-Driven World
This article was originally published in Bloomberg Law. Reprinted with permission. Any opinions in this article are not those of Winston & Strawn or its clients. The opinions in this article are the authors’ opinions only. This article was co-authored with PrincetonComms founder Matt Eventoff.
Winston’s AI Top 10
|October 2025
|5 Min Read
Winston’s AI Monthly Recap - October 2025
Winston’s AI Top 10 summarizes the latest AI developments in the legal industry.
Sponsorship
|October 15, 2025
Winston & Strawn Sponsors, Speaks at ChIPs 2025 Global Summit
Winston & Strawn was a proud sponsor of the 2025 ChIPs Global Summit, which brings together women from all over the world working in technology, policy, private practice, corporations, government, academia, and beyond. Each year, the summit aims to advance innovation through diversity of thought and connect women through engagement opportunities.
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.