Site Search
Professionals 120 results
Capabilities 45 results
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.
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.
Experience 12 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
|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
|July 26, 2024
Winston represented DRONE VOLT in its rights issue on Euronext Growth
Winston represented DRONE VOLT, an expert in embedded artificial intelligence and a manufacturer of professional civilian drones, in its capital increase with shareholders' preferential subscription rights (rights issue) on Euronext Growth, for a total gross amount of approximately €2.3 million, which could be increased to €2.6 million if the extension clause is fully exercised. The offer was open from July 17 to July 26, 2024.
Insights & News 658 results
Recognitions
|February 5, 2026
|Less Than 1 Min Read
Winston Lawyers Featured on the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Environmental Lawyers – The Green 500
Winston & Strawn lawyers were named on the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Environmental Lawyers — The Green 500 list. This directory is “a celebration of the advocates and warriors who fight every day for sustainable practices, remediation from harm, and environmental justice for the planet and all of us who live on it.”
Speaking Engagement
|January 29, 2026
Clean, Just and Competitive: A Blueprint for Europe’s Economies and Societies
Partner Julissa Reynoso is proud to be speaking at the Blueprint Conference in Brussels, Belgium. The conference brings together leading experts and policymakers to share their perspectives across four broad themes:
Other Results 25 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.