Site Search
Professionals 527 results
Capabilities 81 results
Practice Area
Our Patent Litigation Practice is one of the country’s most active and highly regarded. Our seasoned patent litigators bring extensive courtroom experience to every matter we handle. According to Lex Machina, we are among the top three national patent defense firms in the country for number of appearances and cases filed, and we also were the top national defense firm for number of patent trials in the last five years (2018–2022).
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.
Experience 132 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
|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 22, 2025
Winston Paris advised the founders and shareholders of Bylaw, on its acquisition by Septeo
Founded in 2019 by Adrien Aboudaram and Tuan Ardouin, Bylaw has developed next-generation AI technology to automate the processing of legal and financial documents. With a team primarily dedicated to R&D, the legaltech company aims to become the leading AI reference for regulated professions.
Insights & News 4,466 results
Article
|January 2026
|1 Min Read
This article was originally published in Marine News. Any opinions in this article are not those of Winston & Strawn or its clients. The opinions in this article are the authors’ opinions only.
Webinar
|FEBRUARY 4 – MARCH 11, 2026
Digital Assets: What Financial Institutions Are Building Now… and Next
Spurred by a rapidly evolving regulatory environment and increased commercial demand, financial institutions are accelerating their implementation of blockchain technology and digital assets into their legacy platforms or partnering with digital assets firms to provide their clients with access to crypto markets.
Benefits Blast
|February 3, 2026
|3 Min Read
Group Health Plans Must Update HIPAA Notices by February 16 to Address New SUD Privacy Rules
Covered entities, including group health plans, must update and distribute their Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP) by February 16, 2026, to comply with new rules for handling substance use disorder ) records.
Other Results 68 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.
Law Glossary
What Is the Copyright Royalty Board?
The U.S. Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) is a three-judge panel that functions as an independent unit within the Library of Congress. It performs the duties specified in the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act. The Act established statutory licenses that let approved parties utilize certain types of copyrighted works by paying a set royalty, without having to request an individual copyright license from each rights-holder. The CRB sets, and periodically adjusts, the rates and terms of the statutory licenses, and can also make determinations on the distribution of statutory license royalties collected by the U.S. Copyright Office. For example, the judges can determine, for a five-year period, the rates musical performers receive when their works are played via digital services. When licensors and licensees cannot reach rate agreements on their own, the CRB hears testimony from the various parties and then sets the rates. CRB Judges serve six-year terms. The first CRB judges were appointed by the Librarian of Congress in 2006.