Brett Johnson, co-managing partner of Winston & Strawn’s Dallas office, was approached in February by a corporate client and the opposing counsel in a litigation matter with the same message:
“You have got to talk to Aimee Fagan,” the client told Johnson. “She’s your kind of lawyer — excellent courtroom skills and an even better person.”
That same weekend, three friends — none of them related to each other — contacted Fagan, a prominent Dallas intellectual property lawyer at Sidley Austin, to encourage her to talk to leaders at Winston because they thought the Chicago-founded firm “was a natural fit for my practice.”
“At that point, I was in serious discussions with another firm and wasn’t inclined to start a new process,” Fagan told The Texas Lawbook. “However, when I got the third call from a friend, I decided the universe was trying to tell me something. A quick lunch with Brett made that even more apparent. Things moved quickly, as there was excitement on both ends.”
Fagan and Johnson met for lunch.
“It was clear Aimee combined a collaborative nature with dedication to client service and courtroom excellence that is important to us,” Johnson said. “I was sold, and soon so were my partners. With almost a third of our litigation work directed at IP and our office’s long history of being a trial firm, Aimee’s practice was a natural fit. She saw our dedication to the Texas market and our substantial investment in the growth of our IP practice in Texas and globally.”
On April 24, Fagan joined the Dallas office of Winston, which has a reputation as one of the nation’s leading commercial litigation practices. Winston opened its Houston office in 2011 and then a Dallas office in 2017. In 2025, the firm’s Texas lawyers generated $224.2 million in revenue — a 4.2 percent jump from the year before.
The firm, however, has long represented corporate clients in Texas courts. Veteran Winston trial partner Dan Webb was the lead trial lawyer for Big Tobacco in the late 1990s when the state of Texas sued Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds for Medicaid costs related to smoking cigarettes.
Fagan said that “it wasn’t easy to leave” Sidley Austin, where she had been a partner since 2020.
“It was the first time I had worked at a firm where women had serious influence on the culture, management and strategic direction of the firm,” she said.
Fagan, a 1998 graduate of the SMU Dedman School of Law, said Winston became the obvious choice because it “has one of the strongest trial brands globally and is a clear leader in my core practice areas: IP and commercial litigation.”
“Equally important, Winston maintains one of the deepest dockets in the key patent trial venues in Texas and beyond,” she said. “Its teams — staff, associates and partners — have deep, practical familiarity with the judges, including their written and unwritten rules and preferences, as well as the relevant jury pools.”
“The firm has also prioritized hiring former clerks from important venues relevant to my practice,” said Fagan, who has represented corporate clients including Halliburton, Nexstar Media and Ernst & Young. “That experience, combined with a strong track record in key courts, lends instant credibility that will benefit my clients.”
Winston’s addition of Fagan is the first since former partner Tom Melsheimer and a team of litigators left the firm for King & Spalding. But Johnson and Fagan both say that Winston is committed to growing in Texas and that announcements of additional lateral hires are in the works.
The Lawbook interviewed Fagan about IP law trends, AI and its impact on IP disputes and the future of Texas as a patent venue.
Texas Lawbook: What are overall trends you are seeing in IP and patent litigation?
Aimee Fagan: The volume of new patent case filings has declined over the past three months, after a relatively strong 2025. It’s hard to say whether that’s a reflection of the general state of uncertainty throughout the world and the current U.S. administration, a declining interest among top nonpracticing entity lawyers after some courts have pushed back on some of the more prolific NPE litigators, a return to normal after a strong 2025 or other reasons not fully apparent yet.
Adversarial proceedings at the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] have continued to decline as [John A. Squires, director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office] has made it more challenging for patent challengers to get relief from the PTAB.
First, with the critical decline of the inter partes review process attributed to Director Squires’ predilection for using discretionary institution denials, and more recently his changes to the ex parte reexamination process.
Many litigators, myself included, expected that ex parte reexamination — which had all but fallen out of favor over the past decade or so — would see a resurgence as Director Squires rejected a large percentage of IPR petitions. But the expected increase in ex parte reexamination proceedings has been short-lived. Squires [earlier this month] adopted a new mechanism by which patent owners facing the possibility of an ex parte reexam have 30 days to file a 30-page brief arguing against the existence of a substantial new question of patentability before the USPTO turns to decide whether to order ex parte reexamination.
What this means: The days in which a substantial percentage of patent cases could be economically and efficiently defeated without substantial district court litigation may be ending, giving more power to patent owners. More cases will be fully litigated in the courts instead of before the PTAB. Ultimately, those changes are likely to benefit patent owners rather than defendants, as the cost of defending patent cases — and the corresponding settlement value of those cases — will rise.
Lawbook: How has IP monetization evolved?
Fagan: There is increasing recognition by companies that their IP has value for others looking to build larger portfolios for licensing campaigns or otherwise. Private equity has continued to invest in procuring large patent litigation portfolios, bringing substantial resources, specialized in-house counsel, and comprehensive experience to nonpracticing entity litigation. In many instances, this increased sophistication and resources has raised the NPE litigation risk for would-be defendants.
Lawbook: What has been the impact of artificial intelligence?
Fagan: The use of AI is a serious game-changer for patent litigants. NPEs and their financial backers need to make good, but fast, decisions when allocating resources — including attorney time and outside counsel fees — on cases. AI is helping with that early diligence by screening prior art, reviewing publicly available information and even identifying potential infringers. Similarly, defendants are seeing benefits. AI enables litigation teams to expedite the factual analysis in a way that enables lawyers to make early strategy decisions, set realistic case budgets, avoid unnecessary “rabbit trails” and focus on what really matters most in a given case. Both sides of the “v” are also able to save time and money on some of the most laborious phases of patent litigation, such as preparation of contentions and claim charts. I expect the use of AI in IP litigation will continue to grow as new products developed specifically for IP litigation and its particularities are introduced and refined.
Lawbook: There seems to be a lot more cases involving trademarks.
Fagan: Trademark litigation and enforcement screening activities have increased. Businesses are recognizing the serious damage that can be done to their brand if enforcement is not proactive and consistent, which has become increasingly difficult with the proliferation of digital businesses. I expect much of the monitoring work to eventually become automated through AI tools, cutting down on the amount of work handled by in-house and external lawyers.
Lawbook: What percentage of your work is in the EDTX versus elsewhere?
Fagan: Historically, the majority of my patent cases were in the EDTX, but that has changed over time. Now, more of my work — especially for oil and gas technology companies — is litigated in the SDTX, but the EDTX and WDTX courts remain key venues for my practice.
Lawbook: Is the WDTX still a big player in patent litigation?
Fagan: Yes, the WDTX docket remains a big player, although the EDTX has roughly double the patent caseload as WDTX and is currently the busiest patent docket in the U.S.
In terms of venue popularity, the WDTX has remained busy — even with the highest venue transfer rate — but the EDTX venue remains the busiest patent litigation venue in the U.S., although at volumes significantly lower than its peak a decade ago. With Judge Albright’s recent announcement that he will soon retire from the bench, time will tell if the WDTX docket will continue to attract a significant portion of the U.S. patent litigation docket.
Lawbook: Which side of the “v” is more enjoyable for you?
Fagan: While I represent defendants more often than plaintiffs, I very much appreciate having had opportunities to represent plaintiffs. At a prior firm that handled many plaintiff-side cases, I learned valuable lessons on case management. Plaintiffs must prioritize avoiding distractions and focusing on what will ultimately be the winning trial story, allowing that to inform the litigation strategy from the outset. Too often, defense counsel are reactive rather than proactive, fighting every battle as if the case depends upon it. That approach muddies the water, increases fees and ultimately detracts from a winning strategy.
Lawbook: What have been the biggest changes in practicing patent and IP law over the past few years?
Fagan: AI is rapidly changing how we practice, both on the plaintiff and defense sides of litigation. While AI is already well-utilized for legal research and document review, it is particularly helpful in additional ways in IP cases. AI can conduct comprehensive prior art searches quickly, conduct initial infringement analysis, perform initial claim mapping and draft invalidity and infringement contentions. Where alternative fees have become commonplace in IP litigation, AI is the game-changer that can help legal teams meet their case budgets. AI enables litigants and would-be litigants to more quickly formulate a winning strategy, assess potential exposure or recovery and make informed decisions more quickly. These tools particularly benefit patent plaintiffs, who need to quickly assess potential cases before making substantial investments in litigation.
Lawbook: One final question: What do you think have been your biggest court victories?
Fagan: In 2020, I tried a patent and trade secret case for Halliburton in the Southern District before Judge [Andrew] Hanen. It wasn’t an easy case, and we had accomplished trial counsel — Paul Yetter — on the other side. The case had been litigated for seven years, and it wasn’t clear that we would win as key witnesses had retired or gone to work for competitors — among other challenges. I firmly believed we would win it, and I was grateful to Halliburton for betting on us to do just that. Adding to the challenges of any trial, it fell right in the middle of the pandemic shutdown. During our trial, we lost two jurors to illness, and the city of Houston shut all restaurants and hotels. Houston became a ghost town overnight, but Judge Hanen pushed onward with trial. I am most proud of that victory because of the way we handled it as a team — dining on power bars in a closed hotel at night, with minimal staff and resources, to get across the finish line.