Site Search
Professionals 309 results
Capabilities 60 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
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
Winston’s Intellectual Property (IP) Practice is one of the most active and highly regarded in the United States per Chambers USA, Benchmark Litigation US, and Best Law Firms®, among other ranking organizations. Our team features some of the country’s best IP lawyers, attorneys with the technical abilities to litigate and try highly complex IP disputes, and technical lawyers who provide critical advisory services.
Experience 15 results
Experience
|January 19, 2024
Experience
|October 1, 2023
Class Action Plaintiff Sent Packing After Winston Secures Enforcement of Binance’s Terms of Use
Insights & News 1,188 results
Press Release
|November 18, 2024
|3 Min Read
Director of United States Patent and Trademark Office Kathi Vidal to Rejoin Winston & Strawn
Washington, D.C. & Silicon Valley, CA – November 18, 2024 – Winston & Strawn LLP announced today that Kathi Vidal will rejoin the firm’s Litigation Department as a partner in the firm’s Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C. offices and as a member of the Executive Committee after stepping down from her role as Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Kathi will rejoin Winston on December 16, 2024.
Benefits Blast
|November 8, 2024
|2 Min Read
FTC Asks Appeals Courts to Revive Ban on Worker Non-Compete Agreements after Nationwide Block
The FTC recently appealed a Texas federal court’s decision from August to block the implementation of the FTC’s rule banning worker non-competes.
Client Alert
|November 5, 2024
|4 Min Read
Over the last several years, there have been a number of opinions issued by district courts continuing to rely upon their “inherent authority” to sanction parties for the loss of electronically stored information (ESI). Similarly, we have seen broader use of various types of evidentiary instructions as “curative measures” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(1). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent opinion in Gregory v State of Montana, 118 F.4th 1069, 2024 WL 4312740 (9th Cir. 2024) is a strong signal that Rule 37(e) is the only means available to a district court to impose any type of discovery sanction for the loss of ESI. The opinion also sends a strong message limiting the use of some evidentiary instructions absent the showing of “specific intent” to deprive.
Other Results 24 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.
Site Content
What Is Bradford Hill Criteria?
The Bradford Hill criteria (also known as “Hill’s criteria”) are a set of nine criteria first proposed by the epidemiologist, Sir Austin Bradford Hill, in 1965 to evaluate the strength of a causal association between two variables. In the product liability context, plaintiff experts frequently utilize the Bradford Hill criteria to purportedly establish general causation. The Bradford Hill criteria include considerations such as the strength of association, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, and analogy. Several recent decisions in large federal multidistrict litigations have closely scrutinized and ultimately, excluded, improper Bradford Hill analyses conducted by plaintiff experts.
Site Content
In the product liability context, general causation is the legal and scientific determination of whether the product in question has the inherent capability to cause the alleged injury under certain circumstances. Establishment of general causation is a critical aspect of a plaintiff’s case, and typically requires scientific evidence, such as epidemiology or toxicology, and expert testimony to establish a causal connection between the product’s design, manufacturing, or warnings and the injury or injuries at issue. As contrasted to specific causation, the focus in a general causation inquiry is on whether the product or exposure, as a general matter, can cause the type of injury claimed by the plaintiff. A general causation inquiry does not assess any facts unique to a particular plaintiff.