small-logo
ProfessionalsCapabilitiesInsights & NewsCareersLocations
About UsAlumniOpportunity & InclusionPro BonoCorporate Social Responsibility
Stay Connected:
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube
Site Search
  • Professionals (141)
  • Capabilities (30)
  • Experience (12)
  • Insights & News (799)
  • Other Results (35)

Professionals 141 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

ITC – Section 337

The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) is an increasingly popular venue for patent infringement litigation. More and more companies are seeking to halt importations of infringing products into the United States by turning to the ITC for expedited relief. Section 337 investigations conducted by the ITC provide complainants with a “fast track” to remedy IP matters that typically go to trial within 10 months. Since many Section 337 cases go to trial, selecting an ITC litigation team with a command of the technology, patent law, and specialized procedural practice is extremely important. We have handled more than 100 cases before the ITC....Read more

Experience 12 results

Experience

|

May 15, 2025

Winston Secures Federal Circuit Victory for Snap Axing Image-Presentation Patents on the Pleadings

Experience

|

August 15, 2024

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

Experience

|

January 19, 2024

ITC ALJ Issues Win for AMD

View All Experience

Insights & News 799 results

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

Recognitions

|

June 12, 2025

|

1 Min Read

Winston & Strawn Recognized in The Legal 500 U.S. 2025

Winston & Strawn is recognized as a top-tier firm in five areas and recommended in an additional 45 categories in the 2025 edition of The Legal 500 U.S. In addition, eight lawyers are listed in the Hall of Fame, four lawyers are recognized as Leading Trial Lawyers, 16 partners were ranked as Leading Partners, four associates are ranked as Leading Associates, one partner is ranked as a Leading Lawyer, five lawyers are recognized as Next Generation Partners, and two lawyers are listed as Rising Stars. A total of 186 lawyers are mentioned by name in Legal 500 United States commentary for their standout contribution to respective practices....Read more

Client Alert

|

June 10, 2025

|

3 Min Read

PTAB Acting Director Denies IPR Merely Because Petitioner Knew of the Challenged Patent Over a Decade Ago

We previously reported how the PTAB’s institution rate has fallen to approximately 40% in the new administration, with many of those denials stemming from the PTAB’s increased usage of its discretionary denial processes to deny IPR challenges without otherwise addressing the merits of the identified prior art. The latest grant of discretionary denial continues that trend and exemplifies the current challenges in pursuing IPR/PGR invalidity challenges at the U.S. Patent Office. 

View All Insights & News

Other Results 35 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