Site Search
Professionals 504 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 134 results
Experience
|February 4, 2026
A Winston & Strawn deal team led by Partners Justin Levy in New York and Paul Amiss in London advised Aeron Defense, a newly formed defense platform established by Ventus Industrial Partners in partnership with GenNx360 Capital Partners and Admiralty Partners, on its acquisition of defense contracting specialists General Tool Company and Magna Machine Company.
Experience
|February 2, 2026
A Winston & Strawn deal team led by Partners Justin Levy in New York and Paul Amiss in London advised Aeron Defense, a newly formed defense platform established by Ventus Industrial Partners in partnership with GenNx360 Capital Partners and Admiralty Partners, on its acquisition of defense contracting specialists General Tool Company and Magna Machine Company.
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.
Insights & News 4,468 results
In the Media
|February 25, 2026
|1 Min Read
Andrew Hinkes Discusses Prediction Market Litigation and CFTC Authority with Bloomberg Law
Winston & Strawn partner Andrew Hinkes was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article discussing the regulation of prediction markets and the scope of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s authority. States argue that event contracts, which let traders wager on binary outcomes, are essentially gambling and subject to state gaming regulation, while the platforms contend they are swaps and thus fall under the CFTC’s federal “swap” rules. The CFTC filed an amicus brief in North American Derivatives Exchange Inc., v. The State of Nevada, an action currently pending In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that event contracts are subject to the Commodities Exchange Act, and thus that state law on the same topic is pre-empted.
In the Media
|February 25, 2026
|1 Min Read
Kathi Vidal Discusses Scaling Global IP Capabilities
Winston & Strawn partner and Executive Committee member Kathi Vidal was featured in Managing IP, where she discussed the firm’s intellectual property practice and its ongoing evolution to meet the needs of clients across key global markets.
Client Alert
|February 25, 2026
|4 Min Read
Upcoming Registration and Reporting Deadlines for VC Funds with CA Nexus
Under California’s Fair Investment Practices by Venture Capital Companies Law (the FIPVCC), venture capital funds with a nexus to California (Covered Entities) will be required to register with the California Department of Financial Protection & Innovation (the DFPI) starting in March 2026 and report demographic information about their portfolio companies to the DFPI starting in April 2026. The purpose of the FIPVCC is to increase transparency regarding the demographics of the founding teams of the portfolio companies in which Covered Entities invest.
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.