Site Search
Professionals 684 results
Capabilities 89 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
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 30 results
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.
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.
Insights & News 3,795 results
Recognitions
|October 24, 2025
|1 Min Read
Winston Team Earns Spot in Litigator of the Week Column
A Winston & Strawn pro bono team has been highlighted for their notable win in the Am Law Litigation Daily’s Litigator of the Week column on October 24, 2025.
Competition Corner
|October 23, 2025
|2 Min Read
California Strengthens Its Antitrust Law with Stiffer Penalties
On October 6, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law S.B. 763, which will comprehensively strengthen the enforcement framework of California’s Cartwright Act.
Competition Corner
|October 21, 2025
|3 Min Read
Algorithmic Software Faces Growing State and Local Regulation – What Companies Should Do Now
With advancements in artificial intelligence, the use of algorithmic software has increased across a variety of industries. So too has scrutiny by antitrust agencies, private plaintiffs, and state and local governments across the country.
Other Results 69 results
Law Glossary
Colloquially referred to as the “patent dance,” the BPCIA provides a framework that includes certain steps and a schedule during which the applicant and reference product sponsor exchange confidential information disclosed in the aBLA. During the patent dance, the applicant and sponsor identify the patents that could be litigated in the future during two potential phases of litigation. In the first phase, the sponsor can allege infringement of a subset of the patents identified during the patent dance. The second phase begins after the sponsor receives the Notice of Commercial Marketing from the applicant. During this second phase, the sponsor can assert any remaining patents that were not asserted in the first phase.
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.