Site Search
Professionals 141 results
Capabilities 44 results
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
eDiscovery & Information Governance
Winston’s eDiscovery & Information Governance Practice (eDiscovery Group) is one of the United States’ largest and most experienced. Per The Legal 500 US 2024, “[Winston has] a very strong practice from top to bottom. They have a good e-discovery consulting practice and excellent review and production capabilities and are amongst the strongest advocates you could want in a courtroom.” We have built a full-service consulting practice to support our clients and case teams in these complex areas—both domestically and globally.
Practice Area
Addressing a crisis in today’s climate requires both swift action and careful consideration of all potential risks. Winston & Strawn is a trusted business adviser to clients facing complex, fast-moving, high-profile crises.
Experience 11 results
Experience
|August 15, 2024
Winston Achieves Historic No-Damages Summary Judgment for Microsoft in Patent Case
Experience
|July 26, 2024
Winston represented DRONE VOLT in its rights issue on Euronext Growth
Insights & News 685 results
Seminar/CLE
|May 13, 2025
2025 Health Care & Life Sciences Summit
Winston & Strawn is pleased to host its fifth annual Health Care & Life Sciences Summit. Clients and friends of the firm are invited to join us to network with peers and gain insights from industry leaders and legal experts. The summit will take place live at our Chicago office, and CLE-eligible recordings of the Summit’s sessions will be available shortly following the event.
In the Media
|May 2, 2025
|2 Min Read
Mike Rueckheim Discusses Patent Office’s New Denial Process FAQ with Law360
Winston & Strawn partner Mike Rueckheim was quoted in a Law360 article discussing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s recently released answers to frequently asked questions about its new patent challenge denial process for post-grant (IPR/PGR) challenges. The USPTO recently established guidance and a bifurcated briefing process in which the Director, working alongside Patent Trial and Appeal Board judges, will decide whether each petition challenging a patent warrants discretionary denial. The board will consider the merits of the petition’s invalidity arguments only if it is not denied for discretionary reasons.
Class Action Insider
|May 2, 2025
|8 Min Read
Song–Beverly Act Reforms – Rebalancing Consumer Rights and OEM Responsibilities?
Since the 1970s, the Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act has protected buyers of potentially defective vehicles. The latest update, Assembly Bill 1755, aims to curb excessive lemon law litigation and speed up resolutions—but faced pushback from both consumer advocates and automakers, prompting a follow-up measure: Senate Bill 26.
Other Results 24 results
Site Content
What Is Bradford Hill Criteria?
The Bradford Hill criteria (also known as “Hill’s criteria”) are a set of nine criteria first proposed by the epidemiologist, Sir Austin Bradford Hill, in 1965 to evaluate the strength of a causal association between two variables. In the product liability context, plaintiff experts frequently utilize the Bradford Hill criteria to purportedly establish general causation. The Bradford Hill criteria include considerations such as the strength of association, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, and analogy. Several recent decisions in large federal multidistrict litigations have closely scrutinized and ultimately, excluded, improper Bradford Hill analyses conducted by plaintiff experts.
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.
Site Content
Specific causation is the legal and scientific determination of whether the product in question was the direct cause of a plaintiff's specific injury. While general causation inquires whether a broader connection exists between a product and a type of harm, a specific causation assessment focuses on the unique circumstances surrounding a particular plaintiff's case. It typically requires expert testimony demonstrating that the alleged defect or issue in the product was responsible for the specific injuries suffered by the plaintiff. Alternative explanations for the plaintiff’s specific injuries must also be ruled out—typically via a differential etiology—for specific causation to be established.