Site Search
Professionals 27 results
Capabilities 22 results
Practice Area
Brands across key sectors turn to Winston litigators to defend their reputations in advertising class actions, competitor disputes, and investigations. With litigators based in the U.S.’s busiest jurisdictions—including courts in California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas—we have deep experience and prowess in handling some of the most high-profile and business-essential advertising cases in recent history. These disputes have involved false advertising; unfair competition, unfair business practices, and unjust enrichment; copyright, trade name, and service mark infringement; consumer-protection claims; and violations of the Lanham Act.
Practice Area
Winston takes a strategic approach to privacy and data security, integrating our extensive capabilities across practices to provide our clients with cutting-edge privacy and data security counseling, crisis management, security incident investigation and notification management, defense of data security class action litigation and regulatory inquiries, and international data protection. Our Global Privacy & Data Security Practice features a core team of privacy professionals and is bolstered by more than 40 attorneys from a variety of other disciplines firmwide. Our team combines compliance counselors, transactional lawyers, former government regulators and federal prosecutors, seasoned investigators, and experienced litigators. Few firms can rival our in-depth, sophisticated, and integrated experience in this area.
Practice Area
eDiscovery & Information Governance
Winston’s eDiscovery & Information Governance Practice (eDiscovery Group) is one of the United States’ largest and most experienced. Per The Legal 500 US 2024, “[Winston has] a very strong practice from top to bottom. They have a good e-discovery consulting practice and excellent review and production capabilities and are amongst the strongest advocates you could want in a courtroom.” We have built a full-service consulting practice to support our clients and case teams in these complex areas—both domestically and globally.
Experience 3 results
Experience
|August 24, 2023
After a week-long trial that featured damaging admissions and changed stories from opposing party Halliburton’s fact and expert witnesses, a Waco jury took less than three hours to clear client U.S. Well Services of competitor Halliburton’s claims that it infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software as well as methods related to the operation and powering of U.S. Well Services’ fracturing sites, rejecting Halliburton’s position that U.S. Well Services’ commercial success arose from Halliburton technology. The jury also went a step further to invalidate two of the three asserted patents. During his opening statement, Tom Melsheimer told the jury Halliburton was not going to deliver on its burden of proof. Winston’s trial team then established, largely from Halliburton’s expert testimony, that Halliburton had no evidence to prove performance of the steps of the asserted method claims. With this testimony firmly established, Tom threw down the gauntlet in closing argument with the catchphrase, “Where’s the beef?” And the jury agreed. What’s more, the Winston team debunked Halliburton’s willful infringement allegations so effectively the judge granted judgment as a matter of law of no willful infringement in the middle of trial, so the jury never had to reach that issue. The consistent messaging of Halliburton’s failure to bring evidence to make good on its burden of proof, spanning from jury selection to closing argument, put the team in the position to win this first of three patent infringement cases with Halliburton and soundly reject Halliburton’s narrative that Halliburton, not U.S. Well Services, was the market innovator in electric fracking.
Experience
|November 4, 2022
On November 4, 2022, following a seven-week trial, we secured a full acquittal for Matthew Grimes, who had been accused of acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 951(the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA)) and conspiracy to violate the same under 18 U.S.C. § 371. The victory earned our team, and co-defendant’s counsel, Am Law’s November 11, 2022 “Litigator of the Week” honor.
Experience
|December 1, 2020
Seaport Capital's Recapitalization of Exacom
Winston & Strawn LLP represented Seaport Capital (“Seaport”), a lower middle-market buyout firm based in New York, in its recapitalization of Exacom, a leader in the multimedia recording market for critical communications. The partnership will help realize a focused growth strategy that will deliver greater value to the public safety, government, utility, healthcare, and other target markets. Based in New Hampshire, Exacom’s technology supports the recording of audio, VoIP, data, and text-to-911 into digital formats for data collection, analysis, and management. This new focus will include a simpler approach to managing mission-critical information.
Insights & News 536 results
Competition Corner
|December 17, 2025
|3 Min Read
Antitrust Remedies in United States v. Google: AI and the Evolving Search Market
Following the August 5, 2024, decision in United States v. Google where the D.C. District Court found Google to be a monopolist, Judge Amit Mehta issued what would end up being the first remedies opinion on September 2, 2025. The decision establishes a six-year framework designed to promote competition in the general search engine market.
Article
|November 21, 2025
|3 Min Read
The Human Touch Lawyers Need to Succeed in an AI-Driven World
This article was originally published in Bloomberg Law. Reprinted with permission. Any opinions in this article are not those of Winston & Strawn or its clients. The opinions in this article are the authors’ opinions only. This article was co-authored with PrincetonComms founder Matt Eventoff.
Competition Corner
|November 11, 2025
|6 Min Read
Google’s $2.3 Million Mistake: How a Bench-Trial Play Became a Preclusion Problem
While Google’s strategy eliminated the short-term risk of a potentially volatile jury, it exposed the company to a devastating, long-term issue preclusion risk. This article explains why Google’s bench-trial gamble backfired, and what antitrust defendants can learn from it.
Other Results 23 results
Law Glossary
TCPA is the abbreviation for the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The law restricts telemarketing certain phone calls, text messages, and facsimiles. It also places restrictions on the use of automatic dialing systems and artificial or prerecorded voice messages. Collections’ actions by phone are also regulated under the act. Consumers may file complaints with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) when TCPA is violated. Since TCPA law governs consumer rights, lawsuits may also be filed by consumers who suffer violations.
Law Glossary
The field of telemarketing law covers U.S. legislation, federal agency regulations, and state statutes that determine how telemarketers can contact consumers and businesses by phone or text message. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) restrict telemarketing calls, automatic phone dialing, and prerecorded messages. TCPA also requires telemarketers to obtain consumers’ signed written consent before robocalling or robotexting them.
Site Content
Generative AI tools can create new content, such as text, computer code, images, audio, sound, and video, in response to a user’s prompt, often in the form of a short written description of the desired output. Generative AI tools are based on machine learning, trained using enormous amounts of data.[1] Generative AI tools are built on a system of inputs and outputs. First, the tool goes through a machine learning period whereby it is trained to generate predictive models and creative outputs through a large data set, often varied and diverse but tailored to the goal of the tool (i.e., customer service, generating scientific or marketing models, etc.). For in-house tools, this can be done with the company’s own data; for larger tools such as ChatGPT, this is done with the creator’s data set.[2] Once the tool has been trained, the individual user “inputs” a short prompt for the tool to synthesize and produce an “output.” Inputs are often retained on the servers controlled by the company that supports the tool, for monitoring of the tool’s performance and, in some cases, continued learning. The “outputs” are created by combining the machine learning during the training period with the inputs to produce an output.[3]