Site Search
Professionals 92 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 8 results
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. Winston’s trial team established, largely from Halliburton’s expert testimony, that Halliburton had no evidence to prove performance of the steps of the asserted method claims. 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.
Experience
|April 28, 2023
Nabbed Two Big Wins for Motorola in Billion-Dollar Suits Over Cell Phone Safety
Secured two big wins for Motorola Mobility in two long-running litigations challenging the safety of cellular phones, for which Am Law recognized lead attorney Terry Dee as Litigator of the Week. Seeking billions of dollars in damages, plaintiffs sued Motorola and more than 20 other defendants, alleging that cell phone use causes brain cancer. In April 2023, the Western District of Louisiana held that federal preemption barred much of plaintiffs’ claims. Less than a week later, a D.C. Superior Court excluded all plaintiffs’ general-causation experts, impacting more than 80 pending cases. Together, these two decisions are a severe blow to the plaintiffs’ efforts to challenge the safety of products that drive the US$400+B global cellular telephone market.
Insights & News 494 results
Product Liability & Mass Torts Digest
|April 3, 2026
|8 Min Read
A Recipe for Exclusion: Why the Baby Food MDL Experts Failed Under Daubert
In a high-stakes decision on expert exclusion authored late last month, the District Court for the Northern District of California granted defendants’ motion to exclude plaintiffs’ general causation expert witnesses in In re Baby Food Products Liability Litigation—a consolidated mass tort of over 100 pending cases regarding the alleged presence of toxic heavy metals in baby food.
Recognitions
|April 2, 2026
|Less Than 1 Min Read
Steve D'Amore Featured on the 2026 Lawdragon 100 Managing Partners You Need to Know List
Winston Chairman Steve D’Amore merited a place on this year’s Lawdragon 100 Managing Partners You Need to Know list. This directory recognizes leaders who “are impassioned, inclusive, and represent a new era of what it looks like to lead a law firm” and “steer global enterprises whose success is measured in the billions.”
Product Liability & Mass Torts Digest
|March 31, 2026
|2 Min Read
Court Shatters Claims Involving Exploding Sunroof
A district court in Ohio granted summary judgment to automaker Kia despite evidence that the panoramic sunroof on one of its cars “spontaneously exploded and shattered.” The court rejected the plaintiff’s claims, ruling that he failed to produce “any evidence of a design defect.”
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.