Site Search
Professionals 308 results
Capabilities 61 results
Practice Area
Our Patent Litigation Practice is one of the country’s most active and highly regarded. Our seasoned patent litigators bring extensive courtroom experience to every matter we handle. According to Lex Machina, we are among the top three national patent defense firms in the country for number of appearances and cases filed, and we also were the top national defense firm for number of patent trials in the last five years (2018–2022).
Practice Area
Our nationally recognized Appellate & Critical Motions (ACM) Practice delivers sophisticated legal advocacy and analysis before trial, at trial, and on appeal. From state trial courts to the U.S. Supreme Court, our ACM attorneys identify, preserve, and present the critical legal issues that can make the difference between winning and losing.
Practice Area
Winston’s Intellectual Property (IP) Practice is one of the most active and highly regarded in the United States per Chambers USA, Benchmark Litigation US, and Best Law Firms®, among other ranking organizations. Our team features some of the country’s best IP lawyers, attorneys with the technical abilities to litigate and try highly complex IP disputes, and technical lawyers who provide critical advisory services.
Experience 26 results
Experience
|September 8, 2025
Winston represents a class of professional swimmers alleging World Aquatics (WA) violated antitrust laws by blocking their participation in the competing International Swimming League. After WA won summary judgment, Winston successfully appealed, arguing the court applied improper antitrust standards and wrongly denied certification of a damages class. In September 2024, the Ninth Circuit reversed both rulings, reviving all claims and issuing a landmark ruling on the possible application of the per se rule or quick look review to sports-associations rules. Am Law awarded Winston “Litigator of the Week” Runner-Up recognition for the win. In November 2024, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing. In April 2025, the district court certified a damages class.
Experience
|June 25, 2025
Winston Secures Federal Circuit Affirmance of 101 Victory for Polycom
Winston secured an appellate victory for Polycom (now part of HP) when the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment on the pleadings of patent-ineligibility in a lawsuit brought by directPacket Research, Inc. Working closely with HP, Winston argued that all claims of the asserted patent were directed to the abstract idea of translation via an intermediate protocol, with no inventive concept. The Northern District of California agreed, and the Federal Circuit unanimously affirmed, adopting Winston’s arguments. Eimeric Reig argued the appeal, working with HP and the Winston team, including Kathi Vidal, Kelly Hunsaker, Sam Lerner, Matt McCullough, and David Dalke.
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.
Insights & News 1,304 results
Winston’s Environmental Law Update
|November 21, 2025
|4 Min Read
On November 18, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to temporarily stay implementation of California SB 261, the state’s corporate climate-related financial risk reporting law, while an appeal is pending related to an industry group-led challenge to the law. In the short ruling, the Ninth Circuit denied the motion to stay implementation of the companion bill, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act.
Recognitions
|November 12, 2025
|2 Min Read
Winston Lawyers Named as 2025 Law360 MVPs
Winston partners Jeffrey Kessler and Tom Melsheimer merited inclusion on Law360’s 2025 MVPs list. As described by Law360, this year’s winners “have distinguished themselves from their peers by securing hard-earned successes in high-stakes litigation, complex global matters and record-breaking deals.”
Competition Corner
|November 11, 2025
|6 Min Read
Google’s $2.3 Million Mistake: How a Bench-Trial Play Became a Preclusion Problem
While Google’s strategy eliminated the short-term risk of a potentially volatile jury, it exposed the company to a devastating, long-term issue preclusion risk. This article explains why Google’s bench-trial gamble backfired, and what antitrust defendants can learn from it.
Other Results 26 results
Law Glossary
What Is the Patent Trial and Appeal Board?
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is a tribunal within U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The PTAB oversees trial proceedings, namely: inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), covered business method (CBM) review, and derivation proceedings. The Board also hears appeals from adverse patentability decisions by patent examiners in original applications, reissues, and reexaminations. And, while phasing out since the passage of the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011, the PTAB is also responsible for deciding interferences. The PTAB was previously referred to as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and was renamed by the AIA.
Site Content
In the product liability context, a failure to warn claim arises when a plaintiff alleges that a product lacked an adequate warning regarding potential risks associated with its use. To succeed in a failure to warn claim, a plaintiff typically needs to demonstrate that the lack of a warning regarding a particular potential harm rendered the product unreasonably dangerous, and that adequate warnings would have ultimately prevented the alleged harm.
Location
Opened in 2003, Winston & Strawn’s San Francisco office is located in the financial district, just down the road from the Bay Area’s technology epicenter. Our team—now 25+ lawyers strong—keeps a finger on the pulse of the rapidly evolving financial services and technology sectors, and offers support across a wide spectrum of services, including antitrust/competition, commercial litigation and disputes, government investigations and compliance, intellectual property, labor and employment, mergers and acquisitions, and product liability. The San Francisco team works seamlessly with lawyers and departments across the firm’s global network to ensure the highest quality service to our clients. With a culture that represents the Bay Area’s innovative spirit, our lawyers are regularly honored with high-profile awards and frequently recognized by publications, such as Chambers USA, The American Lawyer, the Daily Journal, and The Recorder.