Site Search
Professionals 332 results
- Peter Crowther
- International Managing Partner
- +44 20 7011 8750
- vCard
International Managing Partner
Capabilities 75 results
Industry
Practice Area
eDiscovery & Information Governance
Winston’s eDiscovery & Information Governance Practice (eDiscovery Group) is one of the United States’ largest and most experienced. Per The Legal 500 US 2024, “[Winston has] a very strong practice from top to bottom. They have a good e-discovery consulting practice and excellent review and production capabilities and are amongst the strongest advocates you could want in a courtroom.” We have built a full-service consulting practice to support our clients and case teams in these complex areas—both domestically and globally.
Experience 64 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
|July 30, 2025
Represent Norman W. Fries, Inc. d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms in a series of 15+ antitrust class actions consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois and brought by plaintiffs who allege that Claxton and the nation’s other largest poultry producers conspired to fix the price of broiler chickens in a scheme from 2008 to 2016 that raised the price for broiler chickens by artificially reducing supply.
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.
Insights & News 3,570 results
Seminar/CLE
|January 22, 2026
14th ITA-IEL-ICC Joint Conference on International Energy Arbitration – Houston
Imad Khan is a proud Co-Chair of The Institute for Transnational Arbitration (ITA), Institute for Energy Law (IEL) and International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Court of Arbitration 14th edition of what has become the premier conference on international arbitration in the energy sector. Speakers from around the globe and across the industry will gather to focus on the key issues in the field today.
Global Trade & Foreign Policy Insights
|October 31, 2025
|4 Min Read
EU Publishes 19th Sanctions Packages Against Russia
As Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine continues, the European Union (EU) has maintained its commitment to increasing economic and legal pressure on Russia. In 2025, the EU adopted its 16th, 17th, 18th, and now 19th sanctions packages, each introducing new measures and expanding existing restrictions.
Recognitions
|October 31, 2025
|1 Min Read
Winston & Strawn Ranked in 2025 Chambers Brazil: Transactional Guide
Winston & Strawn has been recognized in the 2025 edition of Chambers Brazil: Transactional Guide. Chambers Brazil ranks and reviews the top law firms and lawyers in Brazil based on in-depth research and client feedback across key practice areas and industry sectors. The firm was ranked for its strength in the following international firm practice areas:
Other Results 65 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.
Law Glossary
A post-grant review, or PGR, is a trial proceeding where the patentability of one or more claims in a patent is reviewed. The review process begins when a third party, who is not the patent owner, files a petition within nine months of a patent being granted or reissued. This filing challenges a patent’s claim or claims based upon a specific ground. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is the branch of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that handles the trial proceeding. The post-grant review can be filed on any grounds that are available to dispute the validity of a patent claim, except for the following: failure to disclose the best mode requirement.