Site Search
Professionals 368 results
Capabilities 64 results
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
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
White Collar & Government Investigations
Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for “Criminal Defense: White Collar” by Best Law Firms®2025, and recognized for “Corporate Crime & Investigations: Highly Regarded – Nationwide” by Chambers USA in 2025, Winston’s White Collar & Government Investigations Practice assists individuals, companies, and organizations with government investigations and enforcement matters; related criminal and civil litigation; trials; appeals; congressional oversight; internal investigations; and compliance counseling and program development and enhancement. We are comprised of 80+ litigators, with more than a dozen former prosecutors from the SEC, Main Justice, and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices nationwide, including four former U.S. Attorneys, Regional Supervisors, and a former Assistant Director, Enforcement Division, SEC. We are known for our zealous advocacy, our unyielding commitment to our clients, and for protecting and defending clients’ interests with legal acumen that’s second to none.
Experience 32 results
Experience
|December 11, 2025
Winston Takes the Checkered Flag After “Massive Win” Settlement
Winston squared off in the W.D.N.C. against lawyers for NASCAR in an antitrust lawsuit brought on behalf of racing teams Front Row Motorsports Inc. and 23X1 Racing LLC—the team co-owned by Michael Jordan and driver Denny Hamlin—alleging monopolization of the market for premier stock car racing teams. On December 11, 2025, nine days into trial and the morning after the plaintiffs rested their case, the parties jointly announced a settlement. Jeffrey Kessler, Jeanifer Parsigian, and Danielle Williams were recognized by American Lawyer with its top “Litigator of the Week” honors on December 19, 2025, for this historic settlement.
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 1,825 results
Winston’s Environmental Law Update
|February 11, 2026
|7 Min Read
Seven states have passed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws related to single-use packaging and plastic food serviceware, with other states considering similar legislation. The intent of these laws is to hold the producers of covered materials financially responsible for their ultimate disposal. Certain states are also requiring the reduction of plastic or non-recyclable plastic used in these materials over time. Legislation is in various stages of implementation, and Oregon is the first state to issue fees to producers. In connection with a legal challenge to Oregon’s EPR program, a court recently granted a preliminary injunction, preventing Oregon from enforcing the law against the plaintiff (an industry group) pending resolution of the case. Meanwhile, CalRecycle continues to struggle with finalizing its proposed regulations implementing California’s EPR law, this time withdrawing its proposed regulations to tinker with provisions related to food and agricultural commodities.
In the Media
|February 5, 2026
|1 Min Read
Winston & Strawn partners Brett Johnson and Jordan Klein were featured in a Texas Lawyer article where they discussed their recent elevation to co-managing partners of the firm’s Dallas office.
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.”
Other Results 29 results
Law Glossary
What Is the Patent Trial and Appeal Board?
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is a tribunal within U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The PTAB oversees trial proceedings, namely: inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), covered business method (CBM) review, and derivation proceedings. The Board also hears appeals from adverse patentability decisions by patent examiners in original applications, reissues, and reexaminations. And, while phasing out since the passage of the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011, the PTAB is also responsible for deciding interferences. The PTAB was previously referred to as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and was renamed by the AIA.
Law Glossary
What Is an Inter Partes Review (IPR)?
An inter partes review of a patent is a type of administrative trial proceeding. Inter partes review became available in 2012 and replaced inter partes reexamination as a way to challenge patentability at the Patent Office. Any person who is not the owner of a patent can file a petition for a review of a patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will act on the petition either instituting a trial or denying institution of a trial. This will occur a little over six months after the petition is filed. If trial is instituted, the proceeding will, with some limited exceptions, be resolved within one year.
Site Content
What Is a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)?
A temporary restraining order (TRO) is a legal document issued by a judge before trial that forces or prevents an action for a specified time frame. During court cases that involve trademark infringement or the use of a trade secret, a TRO can halt patent, copyright, or trademark infringement in the short term. It can offer relief in various situations, such as to prevent the sharing of a business secret or an unfair competition practice, until a court hearing on a preliminary injunction can be held. A TRO petition is an emergency request for a state or federal court to take immediate action based on submitted evidence.