Site Search
Professionals 104 results
Capabilities 26 results
Practice Area
Practice Area
The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) is an increasingly popular venue for patent infringement litigation. More and more companies are seeking to halt importations of infringing products into the United States by turning to the ITC for expedited relief. Section 337 investigations conducted by the ITC provide complainants with a “fast track” to remedy IP matters that typically go to trial within 10 months. Since many Section 337 cases go to trial, selecting an ITC litigation team with a command of the technology, patent law, and specialized procedural practice is extremely important. We have handled more than 100 cases before the ITC.
Practice Area
Brands across key sectors turn to Winston litigators to defend their reputations in advertising class actions, competitor disputes, and investigations. With litigators based in the U.S.’s busiest jurisdictions—including courts in California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas—we have deep experience and prowess in handling some of the most high-profile and business-essential advertising cases in recent history. These disputes have involved false advertising; unfair competition, unfair business practices, and unjust enrichment; copyright, trade name, and service mark infringement; consumer-protection claims; and violations of the Lanham Act.
Experience 10 results
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.
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
|January 19, 2024
Served as lead trial counsel to defend AMD in a massive ITC action brought against AMD by its competitor Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Realtek accused AMD of infringing three patents relating to integrated circuit designs. AMD faced an exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order at the ITC. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot’s decision found that all asserted claims of two of the patents were invalid for multiple reasons. For the third patent, he ruled that all asserted claims were not infringed by AMD, and that all but one of those claims were also invalid. ALJ Elliot also found that Realtek had not proven the existence of the economic prong of domestic industry—a rare outcome at the ITC. The win is significant for AMD because dozens of its product families were implicated. It also sends a signal to non-U.S. companies that the ITC’s domestic-industry requirement has teeth and cannot be assumed to exist based merely on a patentee’s alleged licenses with U.S.-based entities.
Insights & News 611 results
Winston’s AI Top 10
|October 2025
|5 Min Read
Winston’s AI Monthly Recap - October 2025
Winston’s AI Top 10 summarizes the latest AI developments in the legal industry.
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
|June 12, 2025
|3 Min Read
Oregon Enacts SB 951, Restricting PE-Backed MSOs in Physician Practice Transactions
On June 9, 2025, Oregon enacted Senate Bill 951 (SB 951), a sweeping new law significantly limiting how management services organizations (MSOs)—including those backed by private-equity firms—may engage with physician practices. The legislation targets traditional “friendly provider” models by restricting ownership and operational control of professional medical entities and voiding restrictive covenants. Investors must now reassess Oregon-based physician practice investments to ensure compliance by 2026 (for new MSOs) and 2029 (for existing ones). It’s noteworthy that this law will coexist with Oregon’s complicated health care transactions notice law, a law that requires a thorough review of certain health care transactions.
Other Results 27 results
Site Content
What Is Trademark Infringement?
Trademark infringement is defined as the unauthorized use of a trademark or service mark. This use can be in connection with goods or services and may lead to confusion, deception, or a misunderstanding about the actual company a product or service came from. Trademark owners can take legal action if they believe their marks are being infringed. If infringement of a trademark is proven, a court order can prevent a defendant from using the mark, and the owner may be awarded monetary relief.
Site Content
What Is the Domestic Industry Requirement?
The domestic industry requirement for Section 337 investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) mandates that a complainant asserting patent infringement at the ITC, or complainant’s licensee, has made in the United States significant investments in plant and equipment, significant investments in labor or capital, or substantial investments in engineering, research and development, or licensing. The investments must further be directed to articles that practice a valid claim of the asserted patent. The investment component of the requirement is referred to as the “economic prong,” while the requirement that the article practices the asserted patent is referred to as the “technical prong.” The domestic industry requirement is codified in 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2)-(3).
Law Glossary
A safe harbor is a legal provision in a statute or regulation that provides protection from a legal liability or other penalty when certain conditions are met.