Site Search
Professionals 263 results
Capabilities 70 results
Practice Area
Financial Innovation & Regulation
Winston’s Financial Innovation & Regulation attorneys routinely counsel financial services, digital assets, and other clients on complex banking, crypto, FinTech, consumer financial, and securities matters. Many of our team members previously held positions as in-house counsel at global financial institutions and served in positions at government agencies, which gives us considerable experience in helping our clients obtain innovative, effective, and efficient solutions.
Industry
Energy Industry Litigation & Investigations
With our reputation as a trial lawyers’ firm serving as our foundation, we advocate for a variety of power producers, oil and gas companies, and oilfield services providers in high-stakes litigation throughout U.S. district and appellate courts. We also handle sensitive investigations, contentious regulatory and enforcement issues, and arbitration. Our bench is stacked with innovative legal and commercial problem solvers, many of whom came to Winston from in-house positions, amplifying their appreciation for C-suite complexities. By combining our knowledge of the energy industry with first-rate trial skills, and the experience our practitioners have gained from learning our clients’ businesses, we are positioned to obtain the best result for our clients efficiently—whether in the courtroom or a negotiated solution.
Industry
Cryptocurrencies, Digital Assets & Blockchain Technology
As interest in digital assets continues to rise, novel and complex legal issues emerge continually. Winston’s cross-border interdisciplinary team provides comprehensive regulatory, litigation, and transactional services on the array of issues confronting the digital assets industry. Our dedicated team features pioneering attorneys in the sector, leading litigators, former senior regulators, and in-house counsel.
Experience 23 results
Experience
|June 8, 2025
Secured, with co-counsel, final approval of an historic settlement of over US$2.75B in back-damages for current and former college-athletes and a new revenue-sharing model allowing schools to share future earnings with athletes. This decade-long effort across four different lawsuits redefines the economics of college sports, affirming athlete rights and fair compensation. Following a 9-0 Supreme Court victory in Alston v. NCAA, the team filed three antitrust class actions, resulting in a groundbreaking settlement that creates a revenue-sharing system projected to generate at least US$20B in new, previously prohibited payments and benefits to Division I college athletes over the next decade. The settlement was recognized in Am Law‘s Litigator of the Week column.
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
|March 18, 2025
Winston Blunts Earnout Payment
Following a bench trial in Fall 2024, a New York trial court ruled in March 2025 that Cresco Labs, Inc. was not required to pay a US$45M earnout under a merger agreement. The court found that Cresco did not receive “commercially reasonable access” to New York’s adult-use cannabis market, which was supposed to be subject only to a non-competitive application or approval process. Adopting Cresco’s arguments, the court determined that only the Office of Cannabis Management and Cannabis Control Board could decide when and how applicants access the adult-use market. The court agreed that regulators required Cresco to pay a significant one-time fee, prioritized other applicants, and had broad discretion over approvals. This win supports claims that New York’s adult-use program lacks details and clear entry paths, frustrating industry leaders’ efforts to develop a robust adult-use market.
Insights & News 2,826 results
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.
Sponsorship
|October 22, 2025
Winston & Strawn Sponsors the 2025 Eastern District of Texas Bench Bar Conference
Winston & Strawn is a proud sponsor of the 2025 Eastern District of Texas Bench Bar Conference, one of the nation’s top annual bench bar conferences. The conference brings together judges, lawyers, topic speakers, guests, and other participants from across the world to discuss a broad range of cutting-edge legal topics.
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 37 results
Site Content
What Is the Securities Exchange Act of 1934?
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended, the “Exchange Act”) established the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) and gave it the power to oversee the securities industry. Through the Exchange Act, the SEC gained the authority to register, regulate, and oversee brokerage firms, transfer agents, and clearing agencies. The Commission also has authority over the U.S. securities self-regulatory organizations (SROs), including: The New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ Stock Market, Chicago Board of Options, and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. SROs must have guidelines in place to make sure investors are protected.
Site Content
Law Glossary
What Is Tracking and Monitoring Law?
Tracking and monitoring law is related to the rights of individuals and often addressed through state legislation. Tracking law looks at when and how individuals can be tracked through GPS devices and location services. Employers have the right to track company vehicles through GPS devices but cannot track an employee’s vehicle in many states without employee consent. (A written policy on tracking and monitoring may be required, with the policies stating a business purpose for the activities.) Tracking apps on mobile phones can continue to broadcast an employee’s location even after work hours. That is why companies must ensure they are satisfying employees’ expectations of privacy.