By Rayne Wolf, interviewing Steven Laxton.
Steven Laxton, an alumnus of the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, is a patent litigation associate at Winston & Strawn. With a unique blend of engineering expertise and legal acumen, Steven’s career exemplifies the intersection of technology and law. His time clerking for one of the nation’s busiest patent dockets provided him insight into the complexities of intellectual property law; I sat down with him to learn more.
Steven began his academic journey at Texas A&M University, earning a B.S. in electrical engineering in 2015 with specializations in power engineering and biomedical imaging. As an undergraduate researcher, his work focused on photonic signal processing and fiber-optic amplifiers. He continued on at Texas A&M to earn an M.E. in electrical engineering, specializing in device science and nanotechnology. His graduate research, funded by the DoD, deepened his expertise in cutting-edge technologies like photonic integrated circuit design.
While at ASU Law, he demonstrated excellence in patent law, earning the CALI Excellence for the Future Award in Patent Practice and Real World IP Lawmaking. He also participated in the Lisa Foundation Patent Litigation Clinic, served as an editor for Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science, and Technology, and was recognized as a Law, Science, and Innovation Center Scholar.
While Steven’s background is a testament to his technical and legal strengths, his time as a judicial law clerk in the Eastern District of Texas for Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne offered invaluable insight into the practicalities of patent litigation. According to LexisNexis, Judge Payne has construed over 5,500 IP claim terms as of 2025, among the highest by a single judge of all time. Steven’s clerkship provided him with insight into patent litigation involving electrical, mechanical, and software-based technologies. To begin our interview, I asked Steven to describe a typical day during his clerkship, to give us a glimpse into this fast-paced environment.
Steven began each day reviewing a docket report that summarized recent filings, where he identified unopposed and emergency motions to amend the schedule. For simpler motions, he drafted approval orders for routine, unopposed matters to be sent to Judge Payne for approval. If approved, they were forwarded to the clerk’s office for filing on the docket and distribution to the attorneys. In more complex cases involving motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, and motions to exclude, Steven took several days to read briefings. This involved verifying the accuracy and context of case law citations, thereby ensuring that attorneys’ references aligned with the legal precedent they claimed to support. He prepared binders that included all of the briefings for Judge Payne to take home and review. Following this review, Judge Payne would inform Steven what he felt the right response was to each motion. Steven then prepared sample draft orders. This whole process could take a week or two depending on how complicated the issues were. For edge cases or nuanced arguments, Judge Payne often guided Steven in conducting targeted research to locate specific precedents. This was both for general research and to ensure the context surrounding a citation matches the conclusion the party cited.
Steven’s responsibilities extended to assisting during hearings, where he would sit with the briefing materials for the motion at hand, and actively listen to the attorneys’ arguments. As the hearing progressed, he took detailed notes and compared the arguments to the written briefs. If an attorney presented something inconsistent with the briefing or omitted key details, Steven could quickly refer to the briefing in real time, flagging discrepancies or gaps for the judge’s consideration.
Following a hearing, Judge Payne often took time to deliberate carefully, providing Steven with direction on how to draft an order based on the arguments presented. Steven’s notes played a role in this process, enabling him to synthesize the oral arguments with the written briefs and prepare a draft order that aligned with the judge’s instructions. His drafts included any additional specificity or context that might assist in articulating the court’s decision. Ultimately, Judge Payne meticulously reviewed all draft orders and refined language to ensure every detail reflected his intended ruling. This collaborative process allowed Judge Payne to focus on the oral arguments and Steven to hone in on technical inconsistencies of which he could check his intuition with that of Judge Payne.
Many of the hearings in the Marshall Division were Markman, or claim construction, hearings. These hearings are a pretrial proceeding in a patent litigation case where a judge determines the meaning and scope of disputed patent claim terms. Steven explained that a patent typically has around 20, sometimes more, claims at the end; for example, a vehicle frame patent is comprised of claims for four wheels, two axels, etc. However, how these claims are defined is often debated. Does this just mean automobiles, like the average car or truck, or does it include industrial machines as well? During a Markman hearing, the parties may provide evidence to support their proposed interpretations. The judge will issue a ruling on how the disputed terms will be defined to clarify the scope of the patent and shape how it is applied to the facts of the case. Judge Payne is ranked among the top five federal judges who have handled the most Markman hearings in history according to Lex Machina. Steven explained that the claim construction hearing itself and the report and recommendations by Judge Payne were filed and then the case otherwise goes back to Chief District Judge Gilstrap to determine if there is infringement in the final litigation.
I asked Steven if any memorable cases stood out to him during his clerkship. He had the opportunity to work on a large set of cases known as Gree v. Supercell. This legal battle involved Gree, a Japanese company that owns various mobile games, and Supercell, a Finnish company best known for games like Angry Birds. The dispute centered on several patents related to mobile gaming technology, such as methods for processing in-game actions like one player gifting another. With six to seven patents across three to four consolidated cases, the matter required pretrial proceedings in Judge Payne’s court before moving to trial under Judge Gilstrap. Adding to the complexity, similar patent disputes were playing out in the European Union, Japan, and Finland. He said, “Despite this being a huge case, it was still a single battle in a bigger war, which put into perspective the scale of some of these conflicts.” Steven noted that this case stood out because two direct competitors were battling over patents, but it was just one piece of a much larger global dispute.
The complexity of cases like Gree v. Supercell, combined with the high volume of matters on Judge Payne’s docket, highlighted the challenges of managing such demanding workloads effectively. Steven credited Judge Payne’s approach to managing his high-pressure docket as an influence on his own legal career. Steven described Judge Payne as exceptionally organized and dedicated, recalling how he took home binders of case briefings to review well beyond business hours, often leaving the court later than his staff. Judge Payne’s commitment to ensuring accurate and fair rulings demonstrated the importance of investing time and energy into meaningful work. This example has shaped Steven’s perspective in his current practice at a large law firm, where he manages a substantial workload, often working late nights and weekends to meet the demands of complex cases. Reflecting on Judge Payne’s thorough approach reminded Steven of his own responsibility to present his clients’ cases with precision, ensuring that judges have the tools they need to make well-informed rulings.
In addition to the lessons Steven already highlighted about his experience as a clerk, I asked if there was any advice he would give students aspiring to clerk for a judge who handles patent cases. He emphasized the importance of tailoring your law school experience to your strengths and interests. During his 2L year, he took every patent law class available, allowing him to boost his overall academic performance as he was genuinely passionate about the subject matter. He recommended focusing on what works best for you and advised against blindly following advice that may not align with your personal goals or learning style. Steven also highlighted the value of participating in a patent litigation clinic and joining a journal. Although he highlighted Jurimetrics, one focused on science and technology, he emphasized that any journal you participate in, whether you get published or not will significantly enhance your writing skills.
Today, Steven leverages his extensive technical and legal background as a patent litigation associate at Winston & Strawn. His practice focuses on cases involving advanced technology systems, mobile devices, and electronics. Steven’s time clerking provided him with knowledge of the judicial processes and foundational cases that fuel intellectual property litigation. By combining his engineering expertise with the skills he honed during his clerkship, Steven tackles complex legal challenges involving cutting-edge technologies, ensuring that both innovation and justice are upheld in the courtroom.
If you would like to learn about the interesting history of the Marshall Division and how it became a patent powerhouse, click here to read more.