Site Search
Professionals 77 results
Capabilities 20 results
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.
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).
Industry
We help retail and luxury clients navigate challenges around the globe as they protect and expand their brands. We serve as trusted advisors and valued business partners, handling some of the industry’s highest-profile litigation, regulatory matters, and deals. Our track record of successes in both state and federal courts is a testament to our prowess in consumer fraud, product liability, and antitrust litigation and our commitment to excellence extends to our transactional representation, ensuring swift, seamless, smooth, and cost-efficient deals for our retail and luxury clients.
Experience 5 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
|April 30, 2025
In December 2022, Winston convinced Judge Albright of the W.D. Tex. to reverse his tentative construction and invalidate four patents based on means-plus-function indefiniteness at claim construction in the district court. Winston also persuaded Judge Albright to deny Fintiv’s motion for reconsideration the next month. Fintiv appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the district court in a precedential opinion in April 2025. Winston overcame a significant amount of sleight of hand from Fintiv, which continually shifted the purported structure of the “payment handler” term through claim construction, its motion for reconsideration, and appellate briefs, muddying the record. Ultimately the opinion clearly distinguished the factual record from that in Dyfan v. Target, curbing patentees abilities to argue that all code or applications are a “class of structures” and not indefinite under 112(f). The Federal Circuit affirmed four of the five patents Winston invalidated for PayPal, effectively foreclosing Fintiv’s ability to revive these patents for assertion. Winston also invalidated the fifth patent at the PTAB; Fintiv’s appeal of that Final Written Decision is pending.
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 298 results
MaritimeFedWatch
|January 21, 2026
|2 Min Read
Jones Act Survives Constitutional Challenge
On January 20, 2026, Judge James E. Boasberg, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed a case challenging the constitutionality of section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, known as the “Jones Act.” The case was brought by Kōloa Rum Company against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in February 2025.
In the Media
|January 8, 2026
|1 Min Read
Cari Stinebower Discusses Legal Challenges for U.S. Energy Investment in Venezuela with Law360
Winston & Strawn partner Cari Stinebower was quoted in a Law360 article discussing the legal and regulatory hurdles U.S. oil and gas companies now face when considering new investments in Venezuela amid recent political changes. Cari explained that with extensive U.S. sanctions against the Venezuelan government and state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) still in place, few companies will risk doing business until those sanctions are relaxed—either through general or specific licenses issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury or by executive orders that lift the restrictions.
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.
Other Results 13 results
Law Glossary
What Are the Patent Litigation Differences Between the BPCIA and Hatch-Waxman Act?
There are fundamental differences between the abbreviated approval processes to obtain FDA approval for biosimilars and generic drugs as those processes relate to patent litigation.
Location
Launched in 2013, Winston & Strawn’s Silicon Valley office is home to nationally recognized attorneys that draw clients from Fortune 500 companies, startups, and everything in between. Led by Kelly Hunsaker—who has deep roots in Silicon Valley spanning nearly three decades—the office draws from the firm’s deep bench strength and global network of resources to serve clients in a variety of industries, including the semiconductor, computer hardware and software, telecommunications, life sciences, and pharmaceutical sectors. The office’s intellectual property attorneys have litigated extensively in all the top national patent litigation venues, as well as before the International Trade Commission and the Patent Trial and Appeals Board of the USPTO.
Location
Founded in 2008, Winston & Strawn’s Charlotte, North Carolina office of 25+ lawyers, includes firm leaders such as Kobi Kennedy Brinson—represents many major national and international companies headquartered in the city. Our Charlotte office also provides legal services to all of the top ten financial services companies in the U.S., which aligns with Charlotte’s reputation as the second-largest banking center in the country.