Site Search
Professionals 489 results
Capabilities 81 results
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
Trial skills matter—even in a world where few disputes ever see the inside of a courtroom. Winston has built a reputation as a trial lawyers’ firm, featuring seasoned litigators who leverage extensive courtroom experience to meet our clients’ business and legal objectives. Our long history of taking cases to trial—and winning—provides our clients with tremendous settlement leverage with their adversaries, as well as a substantial likelihood of a favorable resolution if, and when, they go to trial.
Practice Area
Winston is a global powerhouse in the financial restructuring space. We offer a fully integrated team of attorneys across a global platform to guide clients through any distressed situation, whether the client is a savvy and interested investor, a creditor seeking to maximize its recovery, or a company aiming to proceed through a successful yet complex restructuring. We have advised stakeholders in some of the highest-profile restructurings and bankruptcy cases in the United States and beyond, including Caesars Entertainment, ResCap, the Los Angeles Dodgers, Enron, Lehman Brothers, Pacific Gas & Electric, LATAM Airlines, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, among others.
Experience 55 results
Experience
|January 27, 2026
Winston & Strawn secured a decisive victory for PayPal in an intellectual property dispute brought by Irish non-practicing entity Internet Payment Patents LTD (IPPL). Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen of the Northern District of California entered final judgment in PayPal’s favor, finding all asserted patent claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and granting PayPal’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend.
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
|July 30, 2025
Represent Norman W. Fries, Inc. d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms in a series of 15+ antitrust class actions consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois and brought by plaintiffs who allege that Claxton and the nation’s other largest poultry producers conspired to fix the price of broiler chickens in a scheme from 2008 to 2016 that raised the price for broiler chickens by artificially reducing supply.
Insights & News 2,901 results
Competition Corner
|February 9, 2026
|9 Min Read
Ninth Circuit Rules U.S. Antitrust Law Applies to Ex-U.S. Sales When Contract Negotiated in the U.S.
On January 8, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed U.S. company Seagate Technology LLC and its foreign entities—Seagate Thailand and Seagate Singapore—to move forward with their claims against Japanese company NHK Spring Co., Ltd. under United States antitrust (i.e., competition) laws.
Press Release
|February 5, 2026
|1 Min Read
Winston & Strawn Appoints Brett Johnson as Co-Chair of Litigation Department
Chicago – February 5, 2026 – Winston & Strawn LLP today announced the appointment of Brett Johnson as Co-Chair of the firm’s Litigation Department, serving alongside Linda Coberly, who assumed the role in 2024. Together, they will guide the continued growth and strategic direction of the firm’s world-class litigation practice.Brett previously served as Litigation Office Head in Dallas and will continue in his role as Co-Office Managing Partner of the Dallas office. With a focus on trials and arbitration of high-risk, complex matters, Brett’s practice emphasizes all aspects of intellectual property and complex commercial litigation, including patent, trade secret, unfair competition, consumer class actions, and breach of fiduciary duties. “Brett is a gifted storyteller and advocate with extensive trial experience and, together with Linda, exemplifies the excellence and collaborative leadership that define our Litigation Department,” said Chairman Steve D’Amore. “We are excited to see them lead the department as the firm continues to expand our litigation services to clients globally.”
Benefits Blast
|February 3, 2026
|3 Min Read
Group Health Plans Must Update HIPAA Notices by February 16 to Address New SUD Privacy Rules
Covered entities, including group health plans, must update and distribute their Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP) by February 16, 2026, to comply with new rules for handling substance use disorder ) records.
Other Results 47 results
Site Content
What Is a Delaware Corporation?
A Delaware corporation is a company that is formed in the state of Delaware but can conduct business anywhere. Incorporating in Delaware has become widespread among large U.S. companies, including more than half of the S&P 500.
Site Content
The Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), enacted in 1988, prohibits videotape service providers from disclosing a customer’s personal information without express consent. Originally, the term “video tape service provider” targeted brick-and-mortar video rental stores as the statute was created in response to the public disclosure of a Supreme Court nominee's rental history.
Law Glossary
Removal is a procedural mechanism through which a case filed in state court may be transferred to federal court upon the request of one or more parties. Actions filed in state court over which a federal court would have original jurisdiction may be transferred—or removed—to federal court under the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Generally speaking, removal is possible if (1) the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) are citizens of different states and the case places more than $75,000 in controversy (so-called “diversity” jurisdiction), or (2) the case turns on issues of federal law (so-called “federal question” jurisdiction). In many cases, defendants prefer to be in federal court, and so defendants often analyze early in the case whether removal is possible.