The first promise that I make to clients is: Bad News Early.
If I find any problem with the technology arguments, or a disconnect between the legal arguments and the technology arguments, I will let you know right away. No delays, no wait-and-see, no trying to "fix it" on my own.
I spent many years relying on employees, staff and other assistants. I know what it is like to be confronted with bad facts or lack of performance in the shadow of a deadline. Adjustments, corrections, and alternatives are easier to contemplate and implement with more time available to take them on.
I am aware of the possibility that what I think is bad news is actually misunderstanding on my part - a circumstance that also requires prompt attention. Just be assured that when I see any sort of divergence between my analysis and what I think is the thrust of your case, I'll let you know right away.
Since 2002 I have testified in deposition about three dozen times, and I have testified or presented tutorials in court about a dozen times. I have seen good arguments fail and weak arguments succeed. I subscribe to the common notion that an expert cannot win your case for you. But I am also aware that poor performance by an expert can severely damage a case.
My overriding goal is that everyone sees that I do good work. I want you to recognize that I helped you to make the best arguments that circumstances allowed. And I want your opponents to make a similar judgment: that your case was improved because of my involvement.
Two of the first three cases I worked on went to trial. I learned early on to prepare to have every statement tested in deposition and in the courtroom. I approach all of my work with the expectation that I will be challenged by a team of attorneys and experts who have weeks or months to probe every seam in every expression I have written. As I understand the responsibility, my job is to assist in the development and expression of the best available arguments in support of your case. My reports are dedicated to that purpose and scope.
Experts are not undone because they reach wrong conclusions. One attacks an expert by attacking his methodology - by questioning the basis for an opinion. My analysis is specific to the systems or software in the case. I explain the relevance of the facts and the application of logic within that restricted context. No sweeping statements, no generalities, no "everybody knows"-style arguments. I write my reports so that every declarative statement is supported by facts, logic or authorities in the record of the case. I am prepared to defend each statement, each argument, and each opinion against challenge at deposition.
I love writing rebuttal reports. Exposing errors of fact in a supposéd expert's report brings unmitigated joy. Shredding sloppy logical arguments is no less satisfying for their being so commonly and readily available. Even experienced experts make lazy arguments, fertile ground for rebuttal because the soil is mixed with so much ... fertilizer.
Academics are the best. They seldom bother to provide support for their conclusions because, I suspect, they see their task as presenting an answer rather than assisting triers of fact (judge and/or jury) with factual and logical support that can lead the triers of fact to their own decisions. PhDs, department heads, Nobel Laureates - bring 'em on. Every declarative statement presents a skein of opportunities to attack its underlying assumptions, its antecedents, and proffered logical consequents. Sheer delight for the inveterate editor.
It's not uncommon for my best, most florid rebuttal takes to be excised from my report and find their way into a brief (unattributed). Makes me feel great.
To quote Mike Judge's MTV icon Beavis, "Words suck." (Also here.) Shallow research based only on word matches leads to struggle throughout the case. Prior art that is conceptually similar to the technology at issue is much more persuasive than proposed prior art that merely uses some of the same words. Although research likely begins with matching words and phrases, more thoughtful effort yields superior results. Thoughtful effort is enhanced by the subject matter knowledge of the researcher. That's me.
Despite what I wrote about academic experts above, my favorite sources for Rule 11 research and preparation of PICs are academic journals from the ACM and the IEEE. Patents are fine, but they are also "final" because the voice in which they are presented proclaims the completion of effort, whereas academic publications present results as moments in the technological flow, relating to other results both earlier and later.
I regularly assist in preparing deposition questions for opposing experts. In addition to my technical contributions, I have a real knack for ferreting out inconsistencies separated in time and space: the statement that conflicts with a line in a spreadsheet; or an argument that negates an earlier or later conclusion. I have attended depositions of opposing experts (and technical non-experts) in person or remotely via live transcription service and made real-time suggestions for questions or lines of questioning.
I prepared the trial slides for my direct testimony in my first patent trial (unplanned, the result of a scheduling change during the trial). I have frequently assisted in preparation of tutorial materials and non-evidentiary presentation materials. I have also assisted in organizing the presentation of technical evidence at trial, particularly (surprise) the preparation of rebuttal material in the wake of testimony by the opposing expert.
My 20+ years experience as a testifying expert makes me very efficient in taking on new assignments.
Request a CV, recommendations from previous clients, a draft engagement agreement, or other available materials via email.
As my email address indicates, I have been "in the business" for quite some time.
New experts need more than "Just answer the question asked" to get them going.
I've been there. I know how to orient a technical person to operate in the peculiar world of litigation.
The experience of two decades as a testifying expert makes me very efficient in taking on new assignments. One good way of determining whether I can assist with your case is to request a CV, recommendations from previous clients, a draft engagement agreement, or other available materials.