Site Search
Professionals 100 results
Capabilities 45 results
Practice Area
Winston has decades of experience representing clients in international arbitrations around the world. Representing clients in both commercial and investor-state international arbitrations, we are well known by the leading players in the global arbitration arena. Our integrated team of attorneys enforces awards worldwide, knows every angle of international disputes, and has a robust understanding of our client’s industries.
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.
Experience 9 results
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.
Experience
|August 24, 2023
After a week-long trial that featured damaging admissions and changed stories from opposing party Halliburton’s fact and expert witnesses, a Waco jury took less than three hours to clear client U.S. Well Services of competitor Halliburton’s claims that it infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software as well as methods related to the operation and powering of U.S. Well Services’ fracturing sites, rejecting Halliburton’s position that U.S. Well Services’ commercial success arose from Halliburton technology. The jury also went a step further to invalidate two of the three asserted patents. During his opening statement, Tom Melsheimer told the jury Halliburton was not going to deliver on its burden of proof. Winston’s trial team then established, largely from Halliburton’s expert testimony, that Halliburton had no evidence to prove performance of the steps of the asserted method claims. With this testimony firmly established, Tom threw down the gauntlet in closing argument with the catchphrase, “Where’s the beef?” And the jury agreed. What’s more, the Winston team debunked Halliburton’s willful infringement allegations so effectively the judge granted judgment as a matter of law of no willful infringement in the middle of trial, so the jury never had to reach that issue. The consistent messaging of Halliburton’s failure to bring evidence to make good on its burden of proof, spanning from jury selection to closing argument, put the team in the position to win this first of three patent infringement cases with Halliburton and soundly reject Halliburton’s narrative that Halliburton, not U.S. Well Services, was the market innovator in electric fracking.
Insights & News 527 results
Life at Winston
|December 19, 2025
|1 Min Read
On December 9, Winston welcomed 20 new protégés into the firm’s Associate Sponsorship Program.
Press Release
|December 15, 2025
|4 Min Read
Professional Swimmers May Be Eligible for Money Damages From a Class Action Settlement
Winston & Strawn LLP, representing Thomas A. Shields, Katinka Hosszú, and plaintiff classes of professional swimmers, is pleased to announce that it has reached a settlement with World Aquatics to resolve the claims on behalf of professional swimmers in the case Shields et al. v. Federation Internationale De Natation, pending in the Northern District of California.
Product Liability & Mass Torts Digest
|December 9, 2025
|3 Min Read
From Credibility to Admissibility: Reblending the Expert Playbook Under Rule 702
The recent decision in Mendoza v. SharkNinja Operating, LLC by the District of Colorado offers a practical illustration of how federal courts are applying the heightened reliability standard under the 2023 amendments to Rule 702.
Other Results 23 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.