Category: Expert Witness

ConsultantsExpert WitnessIndustrial DesignLitigationPatent Infringement

Precision is Key to Patent Indefiniteness Challenge

on February 18, 2015

Prior to June of 2014, the standard for patent review made it nearly impossible to invalidate a patent claim for “indefiniteness” or ambiguity. The  U.S. Supreme Court drastically changed that standard in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

Nautilus brought the case before the Supreme Court based on the notion that “the patent system is best served when patent claims are precise, definite, and certain. Ambiguous and indefinite patents stifle competition and encourage unnecessary litigation.” The Supreme Court agreed saying that the ambiguity the lower court used to evaluate the patent would “leave courts and the patent bar at sea without a reliable compass.” In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court asked the court of appeals to reevaluate whether Nautilus infringed on Biosig’s patent design based on stricter standards.

Although the Nautilus case involved a utility patent, it is suggested by Industrial Design expert, Robert John Anders, that this standard would most likely apply to design patent drawings as well. In a recent article, Mr. Anders posits that the use of break lines or brackets with “indeterminant” measurements could also lead to ambiguity, making design drawings vulnerable to patent infringement challenges.

Image

Read the full article here: Design Patent Drawing Conventions: Break Lines That May Be Fatal

Robert John Anders is a member of the Industrial Designers Society of America and the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society with more than 40 years of professional experience. Mr. Anders has been retained as an Industrial Design Expert for over 17 years.

ConsultantsExpert WitnessMedical

Sports Neurology Expert Witnesses and Concussions

on May 13, 2014

Concussions have been front and center in the news for the last few years. According to the Mayo Clinic, a concussion is “a traumatic brain injury that alters the way the brain functions. Effects are usually temporary but can include headaches and problems with concentration, memory, balance and coordination. ” Technological advances in Sports Neurology have doctors concerned that such a broad definition does the public a great and very harmful disservice.

photo courtesy of premierelife.ca

Photo Courtesy of Premierelife.ca

In his article, “Plain Talk On Concussions,” Sports Neurologist, Dr. Vernon Williams, explains that the public’s understanding of concussions has been oversimplified for many years.  There are many factors to take into consideration when evaluating a patient. They can include previous brain injury, age, and even gender. Dr. Williams explains that,

“You can’t see a concussion on x-ray, CAT scan, or most MRI’s. But the lack of abnormality on those tests does not mean the brain hasn’t been injured. The injury occurs on a cellular level. When special methods are used, there is evidence of change in how the brain is working that last for days to weeks (evidence of persistent brain dysfunction) even when the injured athlete feels that they are back to 100% and the physical examination is normal.”

Players who engage in high contact sports like football  have a high risk for concussion. The problem has become so pervasive that parents and players have pressured the  NFL and the NCAA to tighten safety standards.  Innovations in helmet safety have come too late for many players. When NFL Hall of Famer, Mike Webster, was diagnosed with a progressive degenerative disease of the brain known as CTE, fellow retirees took note. Before his death, Webster suffered from amnesia, dementia, depression, and chronic pain, all symptoms of CTE.

Since then, approximately 5,000 retired players have filed suit against the NFL alleging the entity hid the dangers of concussions. Among the plaintiffs in these lawsuits are Art Monk, Tony Dorsett, Jim McMahon, Jamal Anderson, and Ray Easterling. Considering how high profile these cases have become, it is no wonder that brain injury has become a growing concern in Sports Medicine litigation.

Concussion litigation in the NFL, sports clubs, and even in school yards across the country have garnered so much attention that George Washington University’s law school has developed a course devoted solely to the legal implications of traumatic brain injuries.  Michael Kaplen, who teaches the course, is a plaintiffs’ lawyer who has worked on cases involving traumatic brain injuries for more than two decades. Kaplen believes the NFL became responsible for the safety of its players when it began studying the cause and effect of concussions over twenty years ago. (See article in The NewYorkTimes.com).

Public safety is the common thread for sports neurologists like Dr. Vernon Williams and litigators like Michael Kaplen.  With advances in medical technology, doctors have learned that the basic warning signs of a concussion which have prevailed for so many years are no longer sufficient. In light of this progress, making the NFL and other organizations accountable for the well-being of its players may be the catalyst to improved neurological health not only for athletes, but for everyone who has suffered traumatic brain injury.

______________________________________________________________________________

*Vernon B. Williams, MD specializes in Sports Concussions, Sports Neurology, and Pain Medicine. Dr. Williams is the Founding Director, Center for Sports Neurology and Pain Medicine at the Kerlan-Jobe Orthopedic Clinic in Los Angeles, CA. His clients include the Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Dodgers, Los Angeles Kings, Los Angeles Sparks, among many others.  Dr. Williams’ Profiles on Experts.com.

 

 

 

 

Expert WitnessIntellectual PropertyLitigationPatent Infringement

The Tech Industry and Litigious NPEs

on September 4, 2013

Patent InfringementIt comes as no surprise that the tech industry is the most litigated of 2012-2013. With companies such as Apple, Samsung, Verizon, LG, and Google vying for major shares of the market, competition can get fierce. For over a year, Samsung and Apple have been slugging it out over the copy and design of the iPhone’s software features. These, however, are operating companies with products and services to sell, both of which are vulnerable to fundamentally important legal counter-assertion defenses. Intellectual property litigation gets even more complicated and egregious when it is engendered by entities with no competitive products and services. The same defenses do not apply to to these entities. Even with new and pending patent reform laws in place, high tech litigation is overwhelming our court system and affecting the bottom lines of many high tech companies in industries such as electronics, communications, semiconductors, and software.

The most notable combatants in the IT litigation arena are the Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), derogatorily known as “patent trolls.” These companies base their revenue stream solely on collecting, licensing, and enforcing patents, litigating whenever there is a threat to their patent’s market share, whether real or dubious. Although under criticism from some, James Bessen and Michael Meurer from Boston University released a highly publicized study estimating that the direct cost of NPE patent assertions is “substantial, totaling about $29 billion in accrued costs in 2011.” Although this includes patent infringement awards in all industries, high tech makes up fifty percent of NPE suits filed.

Litigation brought on by NPEs, both costly and time consuming, is difficult to defend. According to PatentFreedom, a company dedicated to assessing and addressing specific NPE risks, since NPEs “do not sell products or services (other than the licensing of their patents), NPEs typically do not infringe on the patent rights contained in others’ patent portfolios. As a result, they are essentially invulnerable to the threat of counter-assertion, which is otherwise one of the most important defensive – and stabilizing – measures in patent disputes.”

The America Invents Act (AIA) passed in September of 2011, which was meant to limit the number of defendants an NPE can join in a suit, has not curbed the amount of patent infringement litigation occurring today. The major tenet of AIA is a shift from “first to invent” to “first to file.” As such, NPEs can no longer gather all possible defendants in an effort to maximize awards. With good intentions, Congress set out to decrease the “deep pocket” syndrome, thereby reducing the number of suits filed. Although the AIA changes the economics of litigation, it has not, in the past few years, decreased the number of cases filed by NPEs. In fact, PatentFreedom estimates that, NPE  litigation against operating companies has increased by 170 from 2012 to 2013, and this is only the halfway mark. In 2012, the number of cases filed against operating companies was 4,229. So far this year, that number has increased to 4,400.

In March of 2013, the Shield Act was passed to curb the amount of egregious lawsuits brought on by NPEs. In effect, it makes NPEs responsible for the litigation costs of failed suits. However, the Shield Act requires defendants to take the suit all the way to final judgement. Since much time and resources are required to litigate these suits, most settle well before judgement. This leaves the door wide open for opportunistic NPEs.
Considering they have the right to sue, do NPEs, by their nature, have an unfair advantage over the operating companies they are suing. Considering the state of affairs today, should Congress do more to level the playing field? Only time will tell how this battle plays out.

ConsultantsExpert WitnessMarketing

Press Release – The Benefits of Distribution

on February 7, 2013

Press Releases are an excellent way to promote Expert Witness and Consulting Services. Aside from publishing press releases to a variety of print, broadcast, and online media, they can also be sent to current and prospective clients. The benefits of issuing a press release are many:

  • Perception Is Key – The idea that an Expert’s services are deserving of media coverage plants the seed that he is successful. In other words, if the New York Times  is taking space to publish a press release announcing an Expert’s or Consultant’s new book , then he must be worthy of consideration for an engagement. A press release, in essence, is mass confirmation of your achievements.
  • Third Party Endorsements – A press release issued on an Expert’s or a Consultant’s behalf by a third party is much more effective than one issued on their own behalf. Most Experts and Consultants are uncomfortable touting their own successes. By letting a third party advocate on their behalf, it takes the negative effect of self-promotion out of the equation.
  • Opportunity to Inform – A Press Release is issued mainly for a specific reason, whether for the publication of a new book, a business milestone, or a litigation success. It does not, however, have to be limited to that success. If written properly, press releases can include a short biography on the Expert or Consultant, communicating their areas of expertise and offering website links for more information on their services.
  • Maintain a Presence –  “Out of sight, out of mind.” It is important for professionals to let their current and prospective clients know that they are consistently relevant in their field of expertise. By issuing a press release, they keep their clients informed of their achievements and remain fresh in their minds for future jobs.

For more information on how Experts.com can help market your services and promote your achievements through a Press Release, please contact us at press@experts.com.

ConsultantsExpert WitnessLitigationMarketingTestimony

Watermarking Your Curriculum Vitae

on February 5, 2013

As disconcerting as it may be, unscrupulous activity does exist in the legal industry. As a leader in the Expert Witness and Consultant field, Experts.com believes in not only promoting our members’ services, but in protecting them as well. As such, we encourage our Experts and Consultants to Watermark their Curriculum Vitae.Watermark CV

Marking the CV with such statements as “UNOFFICIAL,”  “NOT YET RETAINED,”  “DO NOT SUBMIT,” or “UNAUTHORIZED,”  prevents unconscionable practitioners  from downloading  a CV and submitting it as their “Retained” expert witness, or implying such, without the knowledge and consent of the expert.  The watermark makes it clear to other parties what the status of the relationship is between the attorney and the expert.

The benefit of watermarking a CV is twofold. One, it allows an Expert to promote his services and qualifications and still feel secure that they will not be presented without his express consent and, two, it allows the Expert an opportunity to offer the most current version of his CV. Since the attorney must contact the Expert for an “Un-Watermarked” version, the Expert can then update the CV and bring to the attorney’s attention any new work experience or litigation successes.

For more information, or to become an Experts.com Expert Witness or Consultant, please contact us at support@experts.com.

ConsultantsExpert WitnessInsurance

Insurance Expert Witness on Litigation and Selection of Experts

on September 19, 2012

Andrew J. Barile, CPCU, CEO, of Andrew Barile Consulting Corporation, Inc., has over 40 years of experience in the Property Casualty Insurance and Reinsurance Industry. He is the co-founder of the first publicly held Bermuda reinsurer and is on the board of both domestic and offshore insurance companies. Mr. Barile has an MBA from Stern’s (NYU) business school, and has won the AngloAmerican Fellowship to study at Lloyd’s of London, with his thesis on the captive insurance company.

In a recent article, he writes,

“The versatile Insurance Industry Expert is being selected by insurance industry litigation law firms throughout the country. Since many cases involve millions of dollars of litigation exposure, it is important to have an experienced insurance industry expert who brings the element of persuasion and accuracy into the mix.

Insurance experts that have been retail insurance brokers, wholesale insurance brokers, excess and surplus lines insurance brokers, managing general agents, reinsurance intermediaries are very helpful in winning cases because they possess practical industry experience…”

Read More

AdvertisingConsultantsExpert WitnessMarketing

THE BUSINESS OF LAW

on September 12, 2012

Attorneys can be so overwhelmed with the practice of law that they lack time for the practice of business. Between consultations, research, writing, court time, hour-logging, etc., there is little or no time to number-crunch for the highest profit. Many large firms have in-house accountants to mind the books but, even then, the traditional practice of law can hinder a firm’s profitability. The perfect example exists in the Expert Witness arena. The legal industry has a tendency toward the old adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” This is all well and good if, indeed, “it ain’t broke,” but the Expert Witness industry has changed drastically over the last 15 years.

Prior to the computer age, when information was hard to come by, the best way to procure an Expert was through a Broker. Broker’s compiled lists of Expert Witnesses and Curriculum Vitae otherwise unknown to attorneys. The Brokers would then, and still do, charge attorneys a fee to retain those Experts. The cost is usually a 30%-60% mark-up over the Experts’ hourly rates. Though some Brokers offer a brief vetting of Experts, it is not worth the severe mark-up and attorneys are still required to do their own due diligence.

Expert Witnesses No BrokerToday, with information readily available on the internet, there is no need for a Broker’s services. Established and well-respected website Directories have made public and free what was once private and costly. The very same Expert Witnesses are marketing their services with these online Directories and negotiating their own terms with no middle-man. According to Expert Witnesses, the most common dissatisfaction with Broker referral services is their ineffective means of collecting from their law firm clients. With the Experts in control, getting paid is getting easier.

The Expert Witnesses have it figured out. Why attorneys would pay exorbitant amounts for what they could get free of charge is baffling. It’s time for law firms to focus on the bottom line, fix what’s broken, and save thousands of dollars annually. Nothing else makes good business sense.

ConsultantsExpert WitnessMarketing

Marketing Platforms for Expert Witnesses and Consultants

on August 28, 2012

Professional services firms may have all of the pieces of the puzzle, but if they are not in the right place, they are ineffective at best. For Experts and Consultants, sometimes websites rich in content and social media connections are simply not enough to build reputations and establish a market presence. This post is dedicated to professionals with all of the pieces but no real results to finish the puzzle. expert witness handshake

The fact is that expert witnesses and consultants may have a wealth of knowledge to share, but it won’t do much good if it can’t be heard above all of the social media noise out there. Increasing visibility and driving growth depends, more than anything else, on having a platform to promote your expertise. This platform must be uniquely positioned to enable the higher knowledge that experts and consultants possess to reach those to whom it can benefit most.

Fortunately, there is a solution. Experts.com is an established marketing platform specifically designed to assist professionals in building their reputation and getting results. Experts.com specializes in increasing visibility and exposure, which are paramount to survival in today’s ultra-competitive marketplace. Expert witnesses and consultants are encouraged to become members at Experts.com and market their services and expertise to thousands of users worldwide. The potential viewers are considerable, including attorneys, judges, businesses, insurance companies, the media, etc. Through Biographical Profiles, Members are encouraged to promote publications (articles, case studies, books, and more), place unlimited links to specialized website pages, and incorporate social media, thereby providing exposure to Experts.com’s followers on sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

To better target a professional’s market, Experts.com allows its Members to highlight separate profiles under the Expert Consultant Directory and /or the Expert Witness Directory, as not all Consultants act as Expert Witnesses.  Furthermore, the performance statistics for each profile, which can be viewed in real time 24/7, are tracked separately so that Members can see which profile is getting more exposure. Again, Experts.com’s goal in introducing these features is not just to increase their Members’ visibility and exposure but to do so in an effective, efficient, and economical manner.

Expert WitnessMedicalTestimony

Should A Medical Society Discipline A Medical Expert Witness For Submitting A “Draft Report?”

on July 16, 2012

Attorneys often retain expert witnesses to consult on a case, to testify at trial or deposition, or to provide a formal written opinion to the court.  Like any other professional engagement, the process usually involves several communications, back and forth, between the attorney and the expert witness, often including preliminary written or oral opinions.

Imagine if you were retained as a medical expert witness,  had written a rough draft, preliminary opinion, and submitted it, mistakes and all, for initial consideration. Then, imagine if this document had been used in court without your knowledge, and the next thing you know, you’re being disciplined based on the quality of the document. 

Something like this actually took place, and the results may have lasting results for those in the medical community. In May, a California jury determined that the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) was liable for falsely portraying an orthopedic surgeon after he had acted as an expert witness in a medical negligence case. It seems that the AAOS had suspended the medical expert for allegedly providing improper testimony in the case. Normally, the AAOS would have every legal right to discipline the doctor, but here’s the catch: According to the doctor, the “expert testimony” used in the negligence case was the preliminary report  he had submitted to the plaintiff’s attorney who retained him. It was, therefore, not meant to be used in court. Even worse, according to the doctor, the plaintiff’s attorney had removed the words “draft report” without the doctor’s knowledge. This, in itself, is questionable behavior.  For the AAOS to then suspend the Medical Expert and falsely portray him in its publication is certainly overstepping. This, at least, was the finding of the jury, though of course the AAOS is doing all it can to fight this verdict. It is worth mentioning that the jury verdict awarded damages to the doctor against the law firm as well.

 This is a unique case that could have profound implications, not just for the AAOS but for the medical industry as a whole. If a precedent has been set that expert witnesses can successfully sue medical societies, then this is certain to send shock waves throughout the medical community. Expert witnesses should be permitted to submit preliminary drafts before finalizing the report that will actually be used in court. More importantly, no one—attorney or otherwise—should have the right to alter a draft report and misrepresent it as expert testimony. Furthermore, this case, which is among the first instances of an expert witness successfully challenging a medical society’s disciplinary action in court, may compel these societies to think twice before committing what is essentially libel.

As we might expect, this story is far from over – we could say that it’s still in the “draft report” phase. Judging from what happened to one medical expert, it’s probably wise to keep that draft report in safe keeping….

ConsultantsExpert WitnessLitigationSearch Engine OptimizationSEO

Experts.com Launches New Website Platform

on August 30, 2011


Experts.com is proud to announce the launch of its new website platform, with a sophisticated and modern new look and functionality. The changes are specifically intended to increase usability and brand awareness for the benefit of Experts.com Members.

The new website allows Members to market their expertise across multiple platforms, e.g., Expert Witness, Expert Consultant, Expert Answers, Expert Services, Expert Forum and Expert Blog. Members can now customize their Profiles to targeted markets through photos, video testimonials, publications such as articles and books and any other pertinent pages, documents or links of interest. The new site launched August 4, 2011 with the first two platforms for Expert Witnesses and Expert Consultants.

An attorney himself, Experts.com’s President and CEO, Nabil E. Zumout, Esq., strongly believes that the Expert Witness and Expert Consultant search process must be Efficient, Effective and Economical, especially in this troubled economy. “Our Members are at the top of their respective fields. Their expertise may vary in complexity and their services are often equally diverse. The new platform allows each Member to tailor his or her Profile to the intended audience, highlighting the particular expertise or service of interest to that audience and without compromising his or her marketing message.”

On the administrative side, Mr. Zumout states that, “the new platform allows for the consolidated management and tracking of Profiles, Articles, Books, etc., that are linked to each Profile. Finally, upgrading the infrastructure to the latest .NET platform will allow us to add more features, including Member Profile Pages with Unique, SEO friendly URLs. Again, we are simply better facilitating the means of communication between our Experts and those seeking their services.”

Please visit Experts.com to view our new look and functionality! Email support@experts.com with any questions or comments.

1 … 7 8 9 10 11