small-logo
ProfessionalsCapabilitiesInsights & NewsCareersLocations
About UsAlumniOpportunity & InclusionPro BonoCorporate Social Responsibility
Stay Connected:
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube
Site Search
  • Professionals (129)
  • Capabilities (30)
  • Experience (12)
  • Insights & News (795)
  • Other Results (34)

Professionals 129 results

Jennifer Golinveaux
Jennifer Golinveaux
Partner
  • San Francisco , 
  • Silicon Valley
Email
+1 415-591-1506
vCard

Partner

  • San Francisco
  • Silicon Valley
David Enzminger
David Enzminger
Partner
  • Los Angeles, 
  • Silicon Valley
Email
+1 213-615-1780
vCard

Partner

  • Los Angeles
  • Silicon Valley
Michael Elkin
Michael Elkin
Partner
  • New York
Email
+1 212-294-6729
vCard

Partner

  • New York
View All Professionals

Capabilities 30 results

Practice Area

Copyright-Infringement Litigation

Practice Area

Trademark Litigation, Prosecution & Brand Protection

Practice Area

IP Licensing & Due Diligence

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....Read more

Experience 12 results

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

Experience

|

August 15, 2024

Winston Achieves Historic No-Damages Summary Judgment for Microsoft in Patent Case

Exafer sued Microsoft for patent infringement over certain components of the Azure networking infrastructure. After successfully excluding Exafer’s damages expert, Winston secured a rare summary judgment of no damages, resulting in a complete victory for Microsoft. The court found Exafer lacked evidence sufficient to support any non-speculative award of damages, resolving all claims in Microsoft's favor. This is the first no-damages summary judgment in a W.D. Tex. patent case and one of the few in patent cases overall, earning the team a mention in American Lawyer’s Litigator of the Week column. ...Read more

Experience

|

January 19, 2024

ITC ALJ Issues Win for AMD

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....Read more
View All Experience

Insights & News 795 results

In the Media

|

September 23, 2025

|

2 Min Read

Kathi Vidal Discusses Gender Gap in Patents with MLex

Winston & Strawn partner Kathi Vidal was featured in a MLex article where she discussed the gender gap in patents, outreach efforts in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under her leadership as the former Director, and how the office can support women inventors. A 2022 study from the USPTO showed that office policy can help close the gap between men and women in the US patent system. The paper studied the effectiveness of the Pro Se Pilot Examination Unit (PSPEU), which provides additional communication and assistance to inventors attempting to prosecute a patent without representation....Read more

Article

|

August 25, 2025

|

7 Min Read

Adapting To USPTO’s Tighter Inter Partes Review Rules

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....Read more

Client Alert

|

June 12, 2025

|

3 Min Read

Oregon Enacts SB 951, Restricting PE-Backed MSOs in Physician Practice Transactions

On June 9, 2025, Oregon enacted Senate Bill 951 (SB 951), a sweeping new law significantly limiting how management services organizations (MSOs)—including those backed by private-equity firms—may engage with physician practices. The legislation targets traditional “friendly provider” models by restricting ownership and operational control of professional medical entities and voiding restrictive covenants. Investors must now reassess Oregon-based physician practice investments to ensure compliance by 2026 (for new MSOs) and 2029 (for existing ones). It’s noteworthy that this law will coexist with Oregon’s complicated health care transactions notice law, a law that requires a thorough review of certain health care transactions. ...Read more
View All Insights & News

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....Read more

Site Content

What Is Cybersquatting?

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....Read more

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)....Read more
Logo
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube

Copyright © 2025. Winston & Strawn LLP

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