small-logo
ProfessionalsCapabilitiesInsights & NewsCareersLocations
About UsAlumniOpportunity & InclusionPro BonoCorporate Social Responsibility
Stay Connected:
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube
Site Search

Capabilities 62 results

Practice Area

Patent Litigation

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)....Read more

Practice Area

Appellate & Critical Motions

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....Read more

Practice Area

Intellectual Property

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....Read more

Experience 20 results

Experience

|

September 8, 2025

Winston Wins Ninth Circuit Reversal and Class Certification in Swimmers’ Antitrust Case, Securing a Global-Impact Settlement with World Aquatics

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....Read more

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....Read more

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....Read more
View All Experience

Insights & News 1,204 results

In the Media

|

February 25, 2026

|

1 Min Read

Andrew Hinkes Discusses Prediction Market Litigation and CFTC Authority with Bloomberg Law

Winston & Strawn partner Andrew Hinkes was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article discussing the regulation of prediction markets and the scope of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s authority. States argue that event contracts, which let traders wager on binary outcomes, are essentially gambling and subject to state gaming regulation, while the platforms contend they are swaps and thus fall under the CFTC’s federal “swap” rules. The CFTC filed an amicus brief in North American Derivatives Exchange Inc., v. The State of Nevada, an action currently pending In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that event contracts are subject to the Commodities Exchange Act, and thus that state law on the same topic is pre-empted....Read more

Competition Corner

|

February 13, 2026

|

2 Min Read

Federal Court Strikes Down New HSR Form

On February 12, 2026, the Eastern District of Texas overturned the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) new Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act notification form that has been in effect for the last year.

Winston’s Environmental Law Update

|

February 11, 2026

|

7 Min Read

Packaging EPR Regulations Sputter, as Preliminary Injunction Is Issued for Oregon’s Law, While California Again Withdraws Its Proposed Implementing Regulations

Seven states have passed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws related to single-use packaging and plastic food serviceware, with other states considering similar legislation. The intent of these laws is to hold the producers of covered materials financially responsible for their ultimate disposal. Certain states are also requiring the reduction of plastic or non-recyclable plastic used in these materials over time. Legislation is in various stages of implementation, and Oregon is the first state to issue fees to producers. In connection with a legal challenge to Oregon’s EPR program, a court recently granted a preliminary injunction, preventing Oregon from enforcing the law against the plaintiff (an industry group) pending resolution of the case. Meanwhile, CalRecycle continues to struggle with finalizing its proposed regulations implementing California’s EPR law, this time withdrawing its proposed regulations to tinker with provisions related to food and agricultural commodities.

View All Insights & News

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....Read more

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....Read more

Site Content

What Is General Causation?

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....Read more
Logo
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube

Copyright © 2026. Winston & Strawn LLP

AlumniCorporate Transparency Act Task ForceDEI Compliance Task ForceEqual Rights AmendmentLaw GlossaryThe Oval UpdateWinston MinutePrivacy PolicyCookie PolicyFraud & Scam AlertsNoticesSubscribeAttorney Advertising