Site Search
Professionals 90 results
Capabilities 30 results
Practice Area
Practice Area
Practice Area
We routinely help clients protect and commercialize their intellectual property (IP) assets and provide due diligence on complex technology and IP transactions. We negotiate and draft IP licenses and transfers; provide strategic guidance on optimal structures for IP and IT transactions; and evaluate copyright, trademark, and patent portfolios and provide related due diligence activities in connection with IPOs, mergers and acquisitions, private equity investments, licenses, and other corporate transactions.
Experience 12 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
|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.
Experience
|January 19, 2024
Served as lead trial counsel to defend AMD in a massive ITC action brought against AMD by its competitor Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Realtek accused AMD of infringing three patents relating to integrated circuit designs. AMD faced an exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order at the ITC. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot’s decision found that all asserted claims of two of the patents were invalid for multiple reasons. For the third patent, he ruled that all asserted claims were not infringed by AMD, and that all but one of those claims were also invalid. ALJ Elliot also found that Realtek had not proven the existence of the economic prong of domestic industry—a rare outcome at the ITC. The win is significant for AMD because dozens of its product families were implicated. It also sends a signal to non-U.S. companies that the ITC’s domestic-industry requirement has teeth and cannot be assumed to exist based merely on a patentee’s alleged licenses with U.S.-based entities.
Insights & News 643 results
In the Media
|May 13, 2026
|1 Min Read
Alexander Ott Discusses ITC Litigation Funding Disclosure Proposal with Law360
Winston & Strawn partner Alexander Ott was quoted in a Law360 article discussing the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)’s proposed rule requiring disclosure of litigation funding in Section 337 intellectual property investigations. The proposed rule would require parties appearing before the ITC to disclose litigation funding arrangements and entities with financial interests or authority over litigation and settlement decisions. According to the article, the ITC stated that the information could help identify conflicts of interest and provide greater clarity in Section 337 investigations.
Article
|May 8, 2026
|4 Min Read
IP’s Real Legal Frontier With AI Is Everything Before the Output
This article was originally published in Bloomberg Law. Any opinions in this article are not those of Winston & Strawn or its clients. The opinions in this article are the authors’ opinions only.
In the Media
|April 6, 2026
|1 Min Read
Alexander Ott Joins Winston in Washington, D.C.
Winston & Strawn recently announced that Alexander Ott has joined the firm’s Washington, D.C. office as a partner in the Litigation Department and a member of the International Trade Commission (ITC) Practice. Alex focuses on complex patent disputes and represents clients in high-technology industries, including semiconductor, wireless networking, LED, and software technologies. He has led numerous ITC Section 337 investigations and has represented clients before the Federal Circuit, in inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and in federal district courts.
Other Results 34 results
Site Content
What Is Trademark Infringement?
Trademark infringement is defined as the unauthorized use of a trademark or service mark. This use can be in connection with goods or services and may lead to confusion, deception, or a misunderstanding about the actual company a product or service came from. Trademark owners can take legal action if they believe their marks are being infringed. If infringement of a trademark is proven, a court order can prevent a defendant from using the mark, and the owner may be awarded monetary relief.
Site Content
The term cybersquatting refers to the unauthorized registration and use of Internet domain names that are identical or similar to trademarks, service marks, company names, or personal names. Cybersquatting registrants obtain and use the domain name with the bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of the actual trademark owner. Both the federal government and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers have taken action to protect the owners of trademarks and businesses against cybersquatting abuses.
Site Content
What Is the Domestic Industry Requirement?
The domestic industry requirement for Section 337 investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) mandates that a complainant asserting patent infringement at the ITC, or complainant’s licensee, has made in the United States significant investments in plant and equipment, significant investments in labor or capital, or substantial investments in engineering, research and development, or licensing. The investments must further be directed to articles that practice a valid claim of the asserted patent. The investment component of the requirement is referred to as the “economic prong,” while the requirement that the article practices the asserted patent is referred to as the “technical prong.” The domestic industry requirement is codified in 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2)-(3).