Site Search
Professionals 316 results
Capabilities 63 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
Our nationally recognized Appellate & Critical Motions (ACM) Practice delivers sophisticated legal advocacy and analysis before trial, at trial, and on appeal. From state trial courts to the U.S. Supreme Court, our ACM attorneys identify, preserve, and present the critical legal issues that can make the difference between winning and losing.
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 19 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
|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.
Insights & News 1,180 results
In the Media
|April 27, 2026
|1 Min Read
Amelia Garza-Mattia Discusses Supreme Court VPPA Case with Law360
Winston & Strawn's Amelia Garza-Mattia was quoted in a Law360 article discussing a closely watched U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the scope of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). The case follows the Sixth Circuit dismissal of a proposed class action brought by a Paramount Global newsletter subscriber who alleges that the company unlawfully shared users’ personal information with Facebook. After the Sixth Circuit found that the plaintiff was not a “consumer” under the VPPA because he did not subscribe to audiovisual content, the Supreme Court agreed to review the decision.
In the Media
|April 16, 2026
|1 Min Read
Matthew Huppert Featured in FTCWatch
Winston & Strawn partner Matthew Huppert was featured in FTCWatch discussing his decision to join Winston, his experience at the Department of Justice, and his path to antitrust law.
Article
|April 7, 2026
|9 Min Read
Justices’ Ruling Stresses Quick Action Against Absconders
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 28 results
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.
Site Content
What Is Bradford Hill Criteria?
The Bradford Hill criteria (also known as “Hill’s criteria”) are a set of nine criteria first proposed by the epidemiologist, Sir Austin Bradford Hill, in 1965 to evaluate the strength of a causal association between two variables. In the product liability context, plaintiff experts frequently utilize the Bradford Hill criteria to purportedly establish general causation. The Bradford Hill criteria include considerations such as the strength of association, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, and analogy. Several recent decisions in large federal multidistrict litigations have closely scrutinized and ultimately, excluded, improper Bradford Hill analyses conducted by plaintiff experts.
Site Content
In the product liability context, general causation is the legal and scientific determination of whether the product in question has the inherent capability to cause the alleged injury under certain circumstances. Establishment of general causation is a critical aspect of a plaintiff’s case, and typically requires scientific evidence, such as epidemiology or toxicology, and expert testimony to establish a causal connection between the product’s design, manufacturing, or warnings and the injury or injuries at issue. As contrasted to specific causation, the focus in a general causation inquiry is on whether the product or exposure, as a general matter, can cause the type of injury claimed by the plaintiff. A general causation inquiry does not assess any facts unique to a particular plaintiff.