Site Search
Professionals 22 results
Capabilities 10 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
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.
Industry
The medical device industry is currently undergoing monumental change—from supply chain challenges to disruptive technologies and economic fluctuations. To pave the way for a more accessible and innovative healthcare landscape—including advances in wearables, implants, diagnostics, mobility, drug delivery—the evolving and expansive medical device industry faces wide-ranging legal needs. Clients in this sector can tap the remarkable depth and breadth of our sector-focused and skilled attorneys in the U.S. and abroad. Our Healthcare & Life Sciences Industry Group engages clients at all points in the product development life cycle to provide sound advice and practical solutions regardless of the client’s size or the complexity of their need. We help clients navigate today’s complex regulatory landscape, defend products and reputations in the face of high-profile product liability and mass tort claims, protect innovative intellectual property (IP), and leverage cross-border experience to advise on commercial transactions.
Experience 1 result
Experience
Winston Secures Favorable Settlement for Virtualization Company in 10-Patent Case
Represented VMware in two litigations brought by Intellectual Ventures and related proceedings before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board. The cases involved ten patents allegedly directed towards cloud computing, networking and virtualization techniques. The cases were very significant, involving hundreds of VMware product offerings. The cases were pending before Judge Albright in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The litigations settled after claim construction proceedings and after Winston filed multiple IPR challenges.
Insights & News 116 results
Article
|August 25, 2025
|7 Min Read
Adapting To USPTO’s Tighter Inter Partes Review Rules
This article was originally published in Law360. Any opinions in this article are not those of Winston & Strawn or its clients. The opinions in this article are the authors’ opinions only.
Client Alert
|August 5, 2025
|2 Min Read
USPTO Tightens IPR Petition Requirements
On July 31, 2025, the USPTO issued a memorandum announcing that, starting from September 1, 2025, it will interpret its own rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) as limiting the IPR grounds that can be brought before the Office. Congress provided the USPTO the authority under 35 U.S. Code § 312(a)(4) to promulgate regulations to require certain information in an IPR petition. Pursuant to this provision, the USPTO promulgated Rule 42.104(b)(4), which requires that the petition “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” Though prior administrations applied this clause consistent with the Federal Circuit case law—recently reinforced in Shockwave—that although “only patents and printed publications form the basis of an IPR petition’s unpatentability grounds . . . [applicant admitted prior art] can be important evidence of general background knowledge, and general knowledge can be used to supply a missing claim limitation,” the USPTO is now interpreting its own regulation as not allowing applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) to supply missing claim limitations.
Client Alert
|June 10, 2025
|3 Min Read
We previously reported how the PTAB’s institution rate has fallen to approximately 40% in the new administration, with many of those denials stemming from the PTAB’s increased usage of its discretionary denial processes to deny IPR challenges without otherwise addressing the merits of the identified prior art. The latest grant of discretionary denial continues that trend and exemplifies the current challenges in pursuing IPR/PGR invalidity challenges at the U.S. Patent Office.
Other Results 12 results
Law Glossary
What Is an Inter Partes Review (IPR)?
An inter partes review of a patent is a type of administrative trial proceeding. Inter partes review became available in 2012 and replaced inter partes reexamination as a way to challenge patentability at the Patent Office. Any person who is not the owner of a patent can file a petition for a review of a patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will act on the petition either instituting a trial or denying institution of a trial. This will occur a little over six months after the petition is filed. If trial is instituted, the proceeding will, with some limited exceptions, be resolved within one year.
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.