Category: Litigation

Business ValuationExpert WitnessLitigationSecurities

SEC Charges Theranos CEO with Massive Fraud – Securities Expert Witnesses

Once considered “The Next Steve Jobs” or the “female Steve Jobs,” Elizabeth Holmes has fallen from grace and landed directly in the cross-hairs of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Today, the SEC filed a civil complaint against Elizabeth Holmes and her company Theranos, Inc. There was a separate action filed against the Chief Operating Officer, Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani.

The complaint alleges, in part:

“Holmes, Balwani, and Theranos raised more than $700 million from late 2013 to 2015 while deceiving investors by making it appear as if Theranos had successfully developed a commercially-ready portable blood analyzer that could perform a full range of laboratory tests from a small sample of blood. They deceived investors by, among other things, making false and misleading statements to the media, hosting misleading technology demonstrations, and overstating the extent of Theranos’ relationships with commercial partners and government entities, to whom they had also made misrepresentations.”

Oh the good old torts of negligent and intentional fraud and misrepresentation. Takes me right back to the first year of law school, when Nickelback was a hot new band, rather than the sad punchline of Internet memes. I digress.

The complaint goes on to allege that based on representations, investors believed Theranos had developed a proprietary medical device able to conduct comprehensive diagnostic tests from a small amount of blood taken from the patients’ finger. They also made representations that they would collect and transport these samples in order to complete the tests on their proprietary analyzer. All of this would be done more efficiently and economically than traditional blood testing labs.

According to the complaint, Theranos was only able to perform about 12 of the 200 tests they claimed they were capable of performing.

Let’s stop here and give a simple warning: If you are soliciting money from investors, make it very clear what you are able to achieve. Differentiate this from what you hope to achieve in the future. Do not mix the two. Otherwise you get into a bad area called misrepresentation, or in this case, securities fraud.

A wide variety of expert witnesses:

In complex civil litigation such as this, there is room for a wide variety of different experts. I can only imagine the SEC and Theranos are both using consulting experts at this time in preparation for a long drawn out litigation. The complaint has only been filed today, so expert disclosures are a way off. Here are a few types of expert witnesses or consulting experts I expect to see in this matter.

Corporate Governance:

Expert witnesses on corporate governance are highly likely to play a role in this case. Officers of a corporation are fiduciaries of the corporation. Holmes owed a duty of care to the company and to her investors. She is accused of misrepresentation which, if proven, would certainly violate the standard of care owed to shareholders and the company. I expect there will be significant dispute by the parties to prove she either did or did not violate her fiduciary duties.

Securities & Finance:

Several different types of experts who practice in the area of securities fraud may come into play. We are likely to see experienced Wall Street experts with a history in equity trading, proprietary trading, investment research, securities valuation, financial forecasting, venture capital and investment banking.

Some experts will probably have backgrounds in IPO’s, private equity financing, securities financing, and stock options financing.

In this area, I feel as though I can go on ad infinitum. That’s not true and it is probable one or two candidates will have the requisite expertise, described in this section, to address the finance and fraud related matters.

Economics:

Although the SEC is primarily suing for injunctive relief, they do mention the potential for civil monetary penalties. I would expect there will be some need for an economist (by both parties) to establish the value of Theranos and shares owned by Holmes and Balwani.

As I do not practice securities litigation and this is not a law review article, it is possible the civil penalties are predetermined by the Securities Act and there is no need to value the penalties other than by the trier of fact.

UPDATE:

Within hours of writing this blog post, I discovered that Elizabeth Holmes has settled with the SEC. According to Reuters, she will be stripped of her majority control of the company and will have to return millions of shares to Theranos. She will also pay a $500,000 fine and be barred from being an officer or director of a public company for 10 years. As of this update, Mr. Balwani has not settled with the SEC.

 

 

Expert WitnessLitigationPublic Transportation

Potential litigation after Carnival cruise descends into chaos as travelers and security brawl

Imagine a lovely 10-day cruise through the South Pacific. You and your family have boarded the Carnival Legend, sat through the mandatory lifeboat drill, found your cabin, and prepared to enjoy a week-and-a-half on the open ocean. Eating, drinking, dancing, and having a grand old-time.

Let’s take it a little further. Imagine a family of twenty-three (23) individuals has joined you on your voyage. They are probably on the ship for the same reasons you are: rest and relaxation. Alas, that was not the case!

Over the last weekend, news broke that a violent brawl had occurred on the Carnival Legend on or around February 15, 2018. This brawl appears to have been the culmination of many days of unrest on the cruise ship. The Washington Post reports, “A Carnival cruise devolved into near-anarchy during its 10 days in the South Pacific, with some passengers locking themselves inside their cabins, others kicked off the ship and security guards brawling with vacationers in a bare-knuckles melee.”

After cell phone footage surfaced of the fight, Carnival has stated they would investigate the event in full. However, they are already blaming a large family for instigating unrest. Some passengers have claimed the violence and disobedience had escalated for days before security had intervened. When security did intervene, as evidenced by the cell phone footage, they appear to battle it out with the passengers. Punching and kicking passengers into submission and working to stop other passengers from filming the quarrel.

Will a lawsuit arise from the brawl?

In my experience, lawsuits arise from just about every kind of event. So, I expect to hear about some possible legal action related to a fight between vacationers and security, which resulted in worldwide news coverage. Call it an educated guess that legal action may take place after this incident.

For what reason might someone bring legal action? In this case, there are a wide variety of issues. Let’s concentrate on security participating in the brawl. My assumption is someone will sue on the issues of negligence and premises liability. There appear to be plenty of options for a negligence cause of action (negligent security, negligent hiring, negligent training, negligent supervision, and more).

Brawl at the Nightclub

On dozens of occasions we have located expert witnesses after a fight erupted at a bar or nightclub. These are very common lawsuits. A patron is harmed in a scuffle and later brings suit against the bar/restaurant/nightclub operator. Oftentimes, these establishments employ separate security guard contractors and a suit is brought against that company as well. Since there is cell phone footage of the brawl, I expect Carnival to face litigation surrounding the fight. Visual evidence is more compelling than witness statements as long as the video can be authenticated.

Furthermore, it appears the Carnival employees, including security, are unprepared to detain unruly passengers. Their attempts to control the fight leads to a violent struggle between passengers, staff and security. I am quite certain the use of punches and kicks to bring a passenger into submission will be considered an unnecessary use of force.

In the video, I do not see an effort by Carnival staff and security to detain and secure the disruptive passengers. Quite the contrary, they appear to engage them in fisticuffs. Such behavior by crew members is likely to fall below the standard of care for cruise ship personnel and security.

In fact, Carnival’s own Safety and Security statement on their website claims, in pertinent part:

  • All Carnival officers and crew undergo comprehensive regular safety and emergency training that meets or exceeds all regulatory requirements.
  • Our crew members undergo specific training to handle emergency situations and help our guests. Crew roles, responsibilities and duties are clearly defined and assigned to handle any emergency on board.

Looking at the above statement in conjunction with the available video, and this pundit believes the crew members are likely to require extensive training on handling ill-tempered passengers. Punching and kicking the passengers, even if well-deserved per other passenger statements, probably does not meet Carnival’s safety and security standards.

Family Evacuated in Australia

It seems the disorderly family of 23 was escorted off the ship Australia. Police boarded the ship to remove the large family. According to the Washington Post, nobody was immediately charged with a crime.

Am I alone in hoping the family is not identified as United States citizens?

ConsultantsExpert WitnessLitigation

The Super Bowl Arrives as We Await the SCOTUS Decision on Sports Gambling in Christie v. NCAA

Super Bowl Sunday is upon us! In just five days, we’ll be sitting down with friends and family to watch the Eagles and Patriots duke it out to determine NFL supremacy in 2018. I’ll be filling up on smoked brisket, barbecue beans, and a variety of other chips and dips (likely including mass quantities of guacamole). Sunday is also a time of unrepentant gambling. A day of vice if you will. It’s great fun!

This year is no different from years past, except we in the legal community are expecting a ruling from the Supreme Court on the Christie v. NCAA, a case that could open the flood gates for legalized sports betting throughout the United States.

Let’s be honest, many citizens are already participating in sports gambling. Whether it be the office pool, fantasy football, prop bets during the game, or bets with your local bookmaker (not recommended), gambling is a massive part of this annual event.

The Las Vegas hotels and casinos are busy with enormous bets. A story from Boston.com last week highlighted some six and seven-figure bets being placed at the South Point sports book and The Mirage Hotel & Casino. One person placed a bet for $2 million, which is just a tad more than I’m willing to bet this year. Bookies expect total legal betting on the Super Bowl to break last years’ record $138.5 million.

So let’s take a look at how all of this began approximately 7 years ago.

PASPA and Christie v. NCAA:

Gambling is big business and other states want in – New Jersey included! In 1992, Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which prohibited state-sanctioned sports gambling with a few exceptions. According to this post from The Legal Intelligencer, “The act includes exceptions for state-sponsored gambling in Nevada and sports lotteries in Delaware and Oregon.” The act was enacted with the support of all four professional sports associations and the NCAA. The intent of the law was to preserve the integrity of athletic events.

Starting in 2011, then New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s administration took measures to challenge PASPA, leading to a multi-year court battle to have PASPA declared unconstitutional for violating the anti-commandeering doctrine of the 10th Amendment.  It should be noted that New Jersey has lost the case(s) every step of the way (trial and appeals), yet the Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard oral arguments in December of last year.

As laid out by The Legal Intelligencer, “New Jersey argues that, by requiring it to enact state laws to prohibit sports betting, PASPA is commandeering the state’s law enforcement system. The state claims that PASPA violates its sovereignty.”

SCOTUS Ruling Expected by June 2018:

As oral arguments have already been heard, we can expect the decision to be released no later than June of this year. What will happen? I’m no professional SCOTUS commentator, so I dare not hazard a guess at the potential outcome. However, Professor I. Nelson Rose of the Gambling and the Law Blog, predicts “a fairly large majority of the Supreme Court will rule that states cannot be told that they have to continue to make a product or service illegal.” Professor Rose is a law professor at Whittier and has served as an expert witness in civil and criminal trials on the topic of legalized gambling.

If Professor Nelson is correct, next years’ Super Bowl could be a whirlwind of new state-sanctioned sports gambling. Will this also open the doors for eSports and fantasy gambling sites like FanDuel and DraftKings? I guess we’ll have to wait to see how the Supreme Court rules.

How will you be spending Super Bowl Sunday?

Expert WitnessLitigationPharmaceuticalUncategorized

Kentucky AG files lawsuit against opioid distributor McKesson

As I mentioned in our blog post on November 6, 2017, we would be covering the US “opioid crisis” as the lawsuits against manufacturers and distributors heated up. Today, we found out Kentucky Attorney General, Andy Beshear, filed a complaint against McKesson Corp. According to this story by Reuters, Mr. Beshear “accused drug distributor McKesson Corp of helping fuel the opioid epidemic by failing to halt shipments of suspiciously large or frequent orders by pharmacies of prescription painkillers.”

Mr. Beshear’s office filed suit in Kentucky state court. The complaint further alleges McKesson filled suspicious orders and shipped tremendous quantities of prescription opioid pharmaceuticals to Kentucky pharmacies, without reporting them to authorities or preventing the shipments. According to the AG’s own press release, “Federal and state law requires pharmaceutical distributors to monitor and report to law enforcement when it ships large or suspicious supplies of opioids to a state or region.

There’s a wide array of state and local governments pursuing lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies, including McKesson, for deceptive marketing and failures to report suspicious activity which are resulting in opioid addiction and deaths within their cities and towns.

Let’s take a look at causes of action and potential experts:

Based on the complaint, we see that the Kentucky AG is attacking McKesson on some interesting causes of action, including: Consumer Protection Act Violation; Public Nuisance; Negligence per se; Negligence; Unjust Enrichment; Fraud by Omission; and Medicaid Fraud. Mr. Beshear is seeking punitive damages for the State of Kentucky. The complaint further provides the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act protects citizens from “predatory or inappropriate acts by sellers of goods.” The Act states “unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.”

With this information it appears deceptive marketing practices will be an issue in this lawsuit. Both Kentucky and McKesson are likely to employ marketing expert witnesses to address which practices may or may not be false and misleading.

Within this cause of action, Mr. Beshear further alleges violations of the Kentucky Controlled Substances Act. This Act creates a “broad duty on the part of wholesalers to monitor, detect, investigate, refuse to fill, and report suspicious orders of prescription opioids.”

One can only imagine there will be an argument over what constitutes a “suspicious order of prescription opioids.” As such, we expect both parties will be retaining pharmaceutical and pharmacy industry experts. The parties are likely to argue about the existence of indicators used to alert a distributor when a suspect order is placed. I anticipate the parties will be looking to pharmaceutical supply chain or logistics expert witnesses to provide background about notification and indicator systems for identifying suspicious orders.

What relief is the Kentucky AG seeking?

By reviewing the complaint and articles mentioned above, Kentucky is arguing McKesson’s activity has resulted in overdoses which put a drain on emergency services and hospitals. I’m certain Mr. Beshear will argue the costs of medical services have increased significantly as the state has had to deal with opioid overdose.

I further envision an argument will be made about the increase in law enforcement and first responder costs associated with fighting the illegal sales of heroin and other opiates stemming from addiction.

The complaint makes it pretty clear Mr. Beshear is seeking punitive damages on behalf of Kentucky. That being said, both parties are going to employ damages experts. This may involve the use of economists and forensic accountants to determine the amount of financial damage inflicted on Kentucky by McKesson’s actions.

Final Thoughts:

As I’m sitting here in California, I do not understand the true ramifications of the opioid crisis on the State of Kentucky. I am interested to see what individual civil litigation options may be available to the citizens of Kentucky. As such, I invite my friend Daryl Dixon of Daryl T. Dixon Law, in Paducah, Kentucky, to provide us with his thoughts on this subject on his own blog! Ball is in your court, Daryl. Let’s see what the Wildcats have for me…

UPDATED 02/07/2018:

Here is the response from Daryl T. Dixon – Examining the Opioid Crisis: What are my options?

 

LawyersLitigationSocial Media

LegalTech and Access to Justice: Panel at The ABA GPSolo/GLSA Spring Meeting

As 2017 comes to an end, I am looking at what we accomplished this year and what is on our “to do a list” for 2018. There is one item I’m very excited about. I’ll be moderating a panel at the ABA-GPSolo/GLSA 2018 Joint Spring Meeting (April 25-28, 2018) in New Orleans. This is the GLSA’s (Group Legal Services Association) annual educational conference.

Legal Technology:

The panel is covering the topics of legal technology (legaltech) and access to justice. Many may wonder why I’m excited about this. If you are not in the legal or legaltech business, I understand the topic may seem dry. I’ve been working in legaltech for nearly 8 years at Experts.com and one of my hobbies includes vlogging about legal technology. I am deeply passionate about the impact of technology on the practice of law and delivery of legal services. In essence, I get to host a panel on a topic that fascinates me.

There are a lot of exciting advancements taking place in legaltech. You may have heard about topics such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and chatbots. These subjects have been dominating legal news for the last couple of years. The innovations are very cool, at least to an admitted nerd like myself. However, our panel will not be taking a deep dive into these legaltech topics. A friend and colleague, Tom Martin of LawDroid will be at the conference and he’ll be discussing running his practice virtually while vacationing in Europe. I highly recommend chatting with Tom about chatbots and how they can help to run a lean, efficient practice as well as improve access to justice.

Access to Justice:

As much as I’d like to have a more involved discussion about the cutting edge technologies impacting the practice of law, there are less sophisticated, readily accessible technologies that can be employed by lawyers and law firms to improve access to justice. In fact, many of these technologies are already employed by legal practitioners. I’ll be hosting the panel with four actively practicing lawyers, with varying levels of technical aptitude, who are actively improving consumer access to justice.

To learn more about the magnitude of the access to justice problem, I encourage you to visit the US Department of Justice, Office for Access to Justice and this page from the United Nations and the Rule of Law.

Here is a brief breakdown of the items identified by our panel for discussion to improve access to justice within the United States:

  • Cost of legal services
  • Consumer awareness of pro-bono services
  • Time restraints for lawyers
  • Technologies used to improve access to justice

As mentioned above, you and your firm already have access to many of the technologies we’ll be discussing. It is just a matter of how the technology is used to improve consumer access to legal services.

Here are a few of the technologies we will cover:

  • Open source and cloud-based services
  • Mobile technology
  • Social media
  • Prepaid legal services

If you are a solo-practitioner looking to improve client access to justice, what would you want to learn about in this presentation?

To my friends and colleagues in the legaltech space, what other legacy technologies should be covered?

Computer ForensicsComputer SecurityComputersConsultantsExpert Witness

Google Antitrust Investigations: FTC, EU, state attorneys general… More to come?

The ABA Journal reported this week that Google was subpoenaed by the Missouri attorney general (Josh Hawley) for antitrust and consumer protection violations. Google has been placed on notice and the investigation is ongoing. Earlier this year, the Mississippi attorney general sued Google for similar violations and the European Union fined the company $2.7 billion for consumer protection violations. Are you seeing a pattern? Antitrust litigation against Google seems to be full speed ahead.

According to the article, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) completed an investigation against Google in 2013. The FTC concluded, “We have not found sufficient evidence that Google manipulates its search algorithms to unfairly disadvantage vertical websites that compete with Google-owned vertical properties.” Evidently, Mr. Hawley does not agree with the FTC finding so he decided to investigate on his own.

When investigating and prosecuting cases involving sophisticated technology and antitrust issues, attorneys depend on experts to perform complex investigations and unravel complex issues. Who will the attorneys general and defense counsel turn to in support of these involved matters? Let’s take a look at the issues:

Antitrust / Consumer Protection:

To understand more about the laws governing antitrust issues in the US please visit the FTC for a brief summary.

Essentially, United States antitrust law is a collection of federal and state laws regulating the conduct and organization of businesses, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers.  As the FTC page indicates, there are three main laws covering antitrust behavior: the Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914. For more than 100 years, “The antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up.” The laws also basically prevent collusion or cartel-like practices and monopolies.

The Missouri attorney general has said, “There is strong reason to believe that Google has not been acting with the best interest of Missourians in mind.” It appears the Mr. Hawley believes Google is doing things which are not promoting, and possibly impeding, fair competition. Further, their algorithms may be directing users to Google-owned properties rather than websites offering services which compete with those Google-owned properties. As Google is the 800 pound gorilla when it comes to Internet searching, any tactics directing users to their own goods or services could be considered a restraint of trade.

In order to prove Google manipulates algorithms for their own benefit, the Missouri attorney general is probably going to have to employ some expert consultants who may later testify as expert witnesses. Google’s defense counsel will probably have to do the same. I assume Google will have many of the pre-litigation consultants in-house.

During the investigation, Mr. Hawley will likely need to consult with antitrust and antitrust economics experts to determine if actions by Google are negatively impacting consumers or restraining trade. Furthermore, he may need to employ consultants to conduct market research to have statistical evidence of the impact on consumers.

Algorithms:

Most of us (is this too presumptive?) have some sort of rough idea about search algorithms and what they accomplish. We understand it to be a mathematical equation used to search data and deliver a result based on the search terms we utilized.

After reading my last paragraph, I have to say there are probably far more accurate and simplistic descriptions of an algorithm. I may not have properly described how they work. That’s because I’m not a computer scientist. Luckily, neither the prosecution nor defense will be calling Nick Rishwain as an expert witness in Missouri v. Google.

The legal representatives from both sides are going to need assistance in understanding search algorithms and how algorithms might be manipulated by Google. They are going to need to know this quite early in the case in order to request and deliver the proper documentation during the investigation and discovery stages should Missouri file a lawsuit.

Both sides will likely need the assistance of information and Internet technology consultants. More specifically, I can see the need for information science & architecture experts as well as search engine optimization experts.

As the ABA Journal article made abundantly clear: Google has faced many legal actions related to antitrust and it appears even more legal actions lie ahead. It should be noted that Google is not alone in this area. There appears to be increased chatter about antitrust actions against Amazon as well. If the US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission avoid taking action, we may see more attorneys general choosing to investigate and possibly prosecute the corporate giants for dominating the market.

For more information, check out the Experts.com Antitrust Articles section.

Expert WitnessExpert Witness TestimonyLawyersLitigationMedical

Opioid Crisis – An increase in addiction medicine and pain management expert witnesses.

In the nearly 8 years that I’ve been with Experts.com, I have noticed a massive increase in the number of addiction medicine and pain management expert witnesses marketing their services with our company. Between 2010, when I joined Experts.com, and today, the increase has been nearly five-fold.

Is this increase a surprise? Based on what we’re seeing in the news, the answer is no. The United States is experiencing an opioid epidemic. According to CNN’s Opioid Crisis Fast Facts, “more than two million of Americans have become dependent on or abused prescription pain pills and street drugs.” CNN further explains, “during 2015, there were 52,404 overdose deaths in the United States, including 33,091 (63.1%) that involved an opioid. That’s an average of 91 opioid overdose deaths each day.”

Just last week, I spoke to one expert witness who experienced an opioid-related death in his family.  The same day, hours apart, another expert began promoting his pain management and addiction medicine services on our site. This epidemic is impacting millions of families throughout our country. As a result of this epidemic, and much of the overdoses stemming from prescription medication, we are beginning to see significant litigation in the area of opioid-based pharmaceuticals.

Our Opioid Litigation Experiences:

Experts.com has processed more than a handful of expert witness referrals related to opioids. The cases have ranged from prescription abuse in family law settings to overdose issues resulting in wrongful death actions. Probably the most interesting opioid-related matter was as follows: general counsel for a mining company in a small town discovered the townspeople were using methadone at a rate approximately 5 times higher than the national average. Many citizens of the town were also employees of the mining company. They grew concerned about the potential liabilities of employees operating heavy equipment while ingesting powerful pain killers. The company decided to do some testing which triggered some privacy concerns and potential litigation. We have delivered toxicologists, addiction medicine specialists, and pain management professionals in dozens of different opioid-related cases.

Recent Litigation:

In the last few years, we have seen stories of both civil and criminal litigation related to the opioid epidemic, even before it was claimed to be a crisis. Here are a few of the cases you may want to follow:

Civil Litigation:

There have been many lawsuits against Purdue Pharma (maker of OxyContin) since the early 2000’s. As one article explains, more and more state and local governments are launching lawsuits against the manufacturers and distributors of heavy-duty pain medications. The frequency of these lawsuits is almost weekly.  In addition to Purdue Pharma, Cardinal Health, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, and others are targeted.

In July of this year, one of the lawyers, Michael Moore, who targeted tobacco companies in the 1990’s, began urging state lawsuits against the drug makers. By August, an Oregon County sued pharmaceutical companies for $250 million for allegedly persuading physicians to over prescribe opioids. As of September, Attorneys General in 37 states were urging insurance companies to do more to curb the opioid epidemic.

What can we deduce from the high-profile coverage of civil suits against the makers of pain killers? In my assessment, the worst is yet to come for the drug makers. This does not mean the drug makers are defenseless against the lawsuits. After all, there are others in the supply chain to be blamed: doctors, pharmacies, and the patients themselves. Over the long-term, the pain medication lawsuits are likely to be very costly for manufacturers and distributors.

Criminal Litigation:

For the sake of brevity, I’m going to ask you to assume that there is significant drug related crime and we’re going to skip the standard (possession and distribution) opioid cases. Where I have noticed a substantial increase, both in the news and in requests for expert witnesses, is in criminal prosecutions of prescribing physicians and pharmacists.

As CNN described, “doctors are increasingly being held accountable — some even facing murder charges — when their patients overdose on opioid painkillers they prescribed.” The article further explains that the DEA took action against 88 doctors in 2011 and 479 doctors in 2016. One of the doctors described has been convicted of murder. I see at least one new story a week where a doctor, or pharmacist, is being held responsible for the excessive amounts of pain killers prescribed.

The numbers described in the article above, combined with a more aware public, lead me to believe we’ll see even larger numbers of DEA actions against doctors when the 2017 statistics are available.

Other Legal Issues:

As you can tell, I focused on the two areas that I’ve noticed the largest increase in visible litigation. We have processed many other expert witness referrals associated with opioid issues. Many overdose cases are resulting in medical malpractice actions as well as actions brought by medical boards for ethical violations by doctors.  We often see the requests for expert witnesses relating to emergency medicine physicians, toxicologists, pharmacy and pharmacology experts, and more.

Opioid litigation may very well be the “tobacco” litigation of our time.  As such, we are confident that we’ll have more to write about and discuss in the future.

ConsultantsExpert WitnessIndustrial DesignLitigationPatent Infringement

Precision is Key to Patent Indefiniteness Challenge

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.

Expert WitnessIntellectual PropertyLitigationPatent Infringement

The Tech Industry and Litigious NPEs

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 WitnessLitigationMarketingTestimony

Watermarking Your Curriculum Vitae

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.