Tag: legal technology

Demonstrative EvidenceEvidenceExpert Witnesslegaltech

3D Printed Demonstrative Evidence: Expert Witness & Lawyer Insights

Additive manufacturing, also 3D printing, is revolutionizing the creation and development of products. According to Oxford Dictionaries online, 3D printing is defined as, “The action or process of making a physical object from a three-dimensional digital model, typically by laying down many thin layers of a material in succession.” Essentially, you’re making a computer generated three-dimensional solid object.

Are you wondering what type of solids objects one could make? Here are just a few items I’ve found from searching the Internet: bottle openers, sun glass holders, wheelchair ramps, fighter jet parts, concept cars, guns, prosthetic limbs,  jewelry, medical devices, and more.

For our purposes, some of the most interesting uses of 3D printing come in the forms of demonstrative evidence, such as crime-scene reconstruction, accident reconstruction, anatomical recreations for medical malpractice, and product recreations for in product liability cases.  I am certain we will see more uses as the technology progresses, but these seem to be the stand out items in the legal community at present.

3D Printing and the Law:

For a little background, I’ve pulled together some examples of 3D printing uses and their interaction with the law.

An article from 3Dprint.com, discusses a Canadian firm who creates 3D demonstrative models for criminal, medical malpractice, and personal injury cases. The article explains the 3D printed evidence provides a different visual and persuasion experience for jurors. It improves juror memories where verbal or written presentations may fail. A representative for the company featured in the article claims, “the credibility and memory bias problems inherent in courtroom proceedings can be overcome with visual aids.” The company further cited some of their own experiences, “such as 3D printing a broken spine from x-ray data in order to graphically reveal the severity of the injury or using a 3D, PDF image to show the degeneration of a hip in a medical malpractice case as ideal uses for their technology.”

There are other legal issues related to additive manufacturing. For example, if you have access to a 3D printer and you want a Mickey Mouse toy for your kids, what keeps you from creating your own? What if you want to create a bunch of Mickey Mouse toys and sell them to local retail establishments? According to this article from Intellectual Property Watch, you can do just that.  “3D printing technology makes it easy to copy and reproduce products – even if they are protected by a patent, trademark or copyright. It is as simple as downloading a computer-aided design (CAD) file, which can instruct the printer to reproduce a 3D object. CAD files are digital, meaning they can be shared across the internet, just like movies and music.” This article elaborates on the risks to intellectual property:

“The commercialisation of 3D printing – with an increase in small scale manufacturers – makes policing IP complex. Each printed copy of an invention represents the loss of a potential sale to its patent holder. As the manufacturer is ultimately the end user, it is harder to prove infringement. To sue, the patent owner would need to be aware that a manufacturer is using a 3D printer to reproduce their patented invention – a tall order given that 3D printers are increasingly common in households and small businesses.”

Certainly, this is a concern for those who are regularly creating patented and trademarked products.

Law enforcement is another area where 3D printing seems to receive significant news coverage. It seems police are using the technology to recreate crime scenes and even construct printed skeletal reconstructions for unidentified victims. In an article on PoliceOne, I discovered an effort by Maryland State Police to identify a homicide victim whose body was discovered after significant decomposition. Here is the process described on PoliceOne:

“By using 3D printing technology, scientists could create a replica of the skull, enabling police experts to render a facial likeness of the victim, which could lead to an identification… From a 3D printed model, experts can examine the bone structure to predict how facial muscles and skin would lay on the skull… With a rendering of the victim’s facial likeness, investigators hope for someone to come forward and identify the body.”

In an article from the National Post, I found that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) are using 3D printing technology to reconstruct automobile accidents. The article which came out early this year just after the RCMP purchased their first 3D printer explained, “The printer would be used by the B.C. RCMP’s integrated collision analysis and reconstruction service (ICARS), which specializes in forensic reconstruction of collisions that cause serious injury or death. It would be used in conjunction with the unit’s existing 3D scanning technology, which it uses to create digital images of accidents.”

The above descriptions of 3D printing in the legal community are just a few examples. I wanted to give you a taste of the different areas of law being impacted by 3D printing.

Now, how about we get some input from an expert witness using the technology? Someone with experience related to 3D printed demonstrative evidence.

Marc Glickstein, MD, FACR – Medical Demonstrative Evidence Expert Witness

Dr. Marc Glickstein, is a partner in a large private practice radiology group, on the senior medical staff of 8 area hospitals, and an assistant clinical professor of Radiology at University of Connecticut School of Medicine. With his medical background and experience in photography, Dr. Glickstein specializes in providing medical demonstrative evidence to attorneys in personal injury and medical malpractice cases. You can learn more about Dr. Glickstein by visiting his website: medivence.com.

I posed several questions to Dr. Glickstein. Even with all of his experience, he has only used 3D printed evidence in two trials. This is not surprising given how few cases make it to trial these days. Nevertheless, the technology is impressive and is likely to be used more frequently in the future. Here are the questions and answers:

Nick: How long have you been working with 3D printed evidence?

Dr. Glickstein: 3 years.

Nick: What are the most common types of 3D printed evidence that you see in litigation?

Dr. Glickstein: 3D is best for depicting fractures although it can also be used to show tumors, birth defects, post operative complications (generally orthopedic).

Nick: Do you find 3D models to be more compelling evidence than other demonstrations?

Dr. Glickstein: Yes, because they can be viewed in real-time and the jurors can actually hold the model in their hand and have tactile as well as visual input which makes the experience more real and memorable.  It can also be more visually compelling to see the abnormality in 3 dimensions.

Nick: What types of 3D printed evidence have you used to assist in your expert analysis?

Dr. Glickstein: It has been limited to cases of bone fracture at this point but there is no reason why other types of modeling such as tumor modeling could not be used.

Nick: Can you share any examples of 3D printed demonstrations that were critical to the outcome of a case?

Dr. Glickstein: The photos I gave you (see below) were used to illustrate the severe nature of the spinal vertebral fracture and clearly showed the jury that there was significant spinal compression.  They clearly understood this but the verdict went to the opposing side for other reasons, too detailed and arcane to present here.

spinal-fracture-1.JPG

spinal-fracture-2.JPG

Nick: In my mind, I’m thinking 3D printed models are going to be incredibly expensive. Can you give us an idea of costs for 3D printed evidence?

Dr. Glickstein: 3D is expensive and that is the main hurdle. Many attorneys do not appreciate the compelling nature of such modeling and the costs can be dissuasive. The materials alone can run $1-2000 and that does not take into account the time needed to work out the display. This also does not factor in the costs of the 3D printers which are usually rented on a per click basis by a company that does the modeling, and high quality 3D printers can cost over $100k. A model can cost between $2500-4000 for the final product.

Nick: As an example, how long would it take to create a 3D printed model of a human heart?

Dr. Glickstein: It really does not matter whether one is making a model of a fracture or the heart…the time is similar and in general it should take a couple of weeks for me to create a model from time of receipt of the images to delivery of the finished product.

Nick: Anything else you think the legal community should know about 3D printed evidence that I have not asked…

Dr. Glickstein: 3D modeling quality is dependent on the parameters used in the original imaging, which must be of high enough resolution to enable high quality reconstructions in 3D, just as is the case in 2D or digital 3D reconstructions.  If a study is not of high enough resolution, it is not going to enable one to generate an acceptable rendition.  A radiologist can make that determination upon viewing the study itself.

There you have it. Direct from the expert who has used 3D models in litigation. The costs dissuade consistent use of this demonstrative evidence. However, this will not always be the case. As the technology progresses, costs will decrease, making 3D models will be less cost prohibitive. With the potential to show a jury the extent of an injury and allow them to hold a perfectly scaled replica, I predict the demonstrative models will be commonplace.

For greater insight on the future of this evidence, I reached out to one of the most tech savvy lawyers I know.

Morris Lilienthal, Esq. – Huntsville Alabama Wrongful Death and Personal Injury Attorney

Morris Lilienthal is a civil trial lawyer with more than 14 years of experience in wrongful death, personal injury, and product liability matters. He practices in Huntsville, Alabama with Martinson & Beason, PC. Morris is also the host of the TheMoShow, where he interviews local and statewide leaders, sharing stories of their business, public, and charitable endeavors. Prior to law school, he attended Maryville College in Tennessee where he played offensive tackle on the football team. The same competitive nature that helped Morris excel on the field helps him in his representation of injury victims today.

I know a lot of lawyers and I reached out to a bunch of them. It may be no surprise that none of them have yet used 3D printed demonstrative evidence in trial. Although, most of them knew of lawyers who had. This area of demonstrative evidence is growing and we’re sure to see it in the future. I asked Morris some questions about the potential use of 3D printed models at trial. Here they are:

Nick: Have you used 3D printed demonstrative evidence in litigation?

Morris: I have not used 3D printed models yet.

Nick: Would you find it helpful to present a 3D model to jurors to show the extent of an injury?

Morris: Yes, I think a 3D model would be very helpful in trial.  Anytime you put the jury in a position where they can visualize what’s occurred the case goes from just something that’s abstract to real life.  The jury gets a real understanding of what injury the plaintiff suffered and can then understand how the injury may impact them. As the saying goes a picture speaks a thousand words.

Nick: Do you think it would be good for jurors to be able to hold and analyze an exact replica of an injury (skeletal damage, damaged organ, traumatic brain injury)?

Morris: Yes.  Again it allows the jury to understand how the accident at issue caused the injury and how the injury impacts the plaintiff.

Nick: Besides current costs, is there a reason you might avoid using 3D printed demonstrative evidence?

Morris: Authentication by the doctor.  Before the model is able to be introduced into evidence you will have to get the doctor to validate its a true representation of the plaintiff’s injury.  This, can be done by sending the doctor the model prior to his/her testimony for authentication. However if the model is not accurate it will have to be made.

Nick: Are there any other items you think lawyers should take into consideration before using 3D printed evidence?

Morris: Just make sure the jury understands this is the exact injury the plaintiff suffered and that it’s not a model.

As this evidence is more commonly used, we will bring you more insights and suggestions from the experts and lawyers using the evidence at trial. Keep an eye out for the 3D printed demonstrative models. If they have not yet, they will be coming to a courtroom near you!

 

 

 

EngineeringExpert WitnessInsurancelegaltech

Robot Rights and Liability: Do they need legal rights? Here’s what one expert witness has to say…

Have you been following the advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics? There are some really fascinating developments in the fields. Just this week I’ve read about artificially intelligent systems used to identify people likely to commit a crime (before it happens); robotics systems being used in construction; unmanned aerial vehicles; self-driving cars; and, of course, it seems a week cannot go by without a new headline about sex robots.

Last Friday, I found some news stories that were really interesting. It appears a 2017 report from the European Commission had “a paragraph of text buried deep in a European Parliament report, that advised creating a ‘legal status for robots,'” according to this article from The Daily Mail.

I found this quite fascinating and had to dig deeper. Why would we need to develop a legal status for robots? What would be the point? An article in Futurism stated, “If a robot, acting autonomously injures or otherwise wrongs a human, who will be held responsible? Some European lawmakers think that the best way to resolve this question will be to give robots ‘electronic personalities,’ a form of legal person-hood.”

To me, there is a simple answer to this topic. The owner and/or the manufacturer would be held liable. Why would society need something beyond existing negligence, product liability, and consumer protection laws?

According to the report, the European Commission does not want to give robots legal status equal to humans. Rather, they want to give them a status similar to corporations. The concern doesn’t seem to apply to your automation-style robots, but rather those capable of self-learning.

I contend we do not need new theories of liability to address this issue. It should be handled just like owning an automobile. As the owner of a car, I must have it insured. Insurance covers personal injury and property damage caused by the vehicle if I am driving it or if another driver is covered by my policy. If the vehicle malfunctions and causes damage due to a manufacturing, design, or warning defect, then I sue the manufacturer (or another injured party may sue the manufacturer). As such, owner and manufacturer are the responsible parties. My automobile doesn’t require its own legal status.

A robot, sentient or not, does not require its own legal status. It can be insured just like an automobile and the owner should be responsible for insuring the equipment. Furthermore, if it malfunctions and causes harm, the manufacturer can be held liable for any product defects.

I have asked for some input on this topic from a couple of our Experts.com members. At the time of this writing we have received a response from one expert. Dr. Harry Direen, PhD, PE, has a wide variety of expertise including electronic systems, control systems, robotics, software, signal processing, UAV’s/drones, and more. I encourage you to check out his company DireenTech.

Several questions were posited to Dr. Direen. Please see the questions and answers below.

What the expert has to say:

Me: Do you see any need for creating a legal status for robots?

Dr. Direen: No… robots are not humans, they are machines.  Despite the hype, I do not believe robot technology is anywhere near thinking on their own or being responsible for their actions.

Me: Are there any positive reasons to create a legal status for robots?

Dr. Direen: No, not that I know of.

Me: Are there any negatives you can think of in creating a legal status?

Dr. Direen: Yes, as a society we start legally blurring the lines between humans and the machines we create.  I don’t believe we elevate humans in the process, but just the opposite.  We advance the myth that humans are little more than carbon based machines with no more value than the machines we create rather than highly valued creations of our Creator.

Me: Is there any reason damage caused by robots cannot be addressed by existing legal principles such as product liability (manufacturing, design, or warning defects)?

Dr. Direen: No. Giving robots legal status would simply be an excuse to divorce engineers, designers, and manufactures from the responsibility of their products.

Me: If a robot were to fail and cause personal or property damage, would a forensic investigation apply the same principles as any other failure analysis investigation?

Dr. Direen: Yes, a robot is just a piece of technology like any other.

So there you have it. Dr. Direen and I seem to be in agreement. Existing legal and investigatory principles should apply to robots. There is no need to provide additional legal protections to machinery.

What do you think? Feel free to comment below and let me know your thoughts. It is a fascinating topic. Robotics is a field where I anticipate a great deal of future litigation. As the topic evolves, I’m certain we’ll be discussing it in greater depth.

 

Expert WitnessIntellectual PropertylegaltechSocial Media

Tinder v. Bumble: Swipe Right for Your Next Patent Infringement Expert Witness

Last Friday I was sitting at my desk trying to find the next topic to blog about. Friday was an incredibly slow news day and nothing had piqued my interest. So I reached out to some lawyer-friends in the LegalMinds Mastermind Group for some ideas. I received a lot of feedback with some really great ideas. However, this Tinder v. Bumble lawsuit sounded like the most fun. A special thanks to patent lawyer, Karima Gulick, for the idea.

In fact, I had not even heard about this lawsuit until Karima mentioned it. It seems that Tinder’s parent company, Match Group (think Match.com), has decided to sue Bumble for patent infringement. For those who haven’t heard of Bumble, it is another popular dating app that allows women to make the first move. It seems they are now using very similar features to Tinder. An article in The Verge described the two patents at issue:

“…one called ‘Matching Process System and Method,’ in which users swipe cards and mutually select one another, as well as ‘Display Screen or Portion Thereof With a Graphical User Interface of a Mobile Device,’ which it describes as an ‘ornamental aspect’ of Tinder’s App. The lawsuit also points to similarities between each companies’ apps, and Bumble’s descriptions of ‘swiping’ run afoul of Tinder’s registered trademarks.”

It seems Tinder is accusing Bumble of infringing on the item that really made Tinder famous (i.e. swiping). Swiping did away with all that scrolling, reading, and learning about a potential romantic interest. Who has time for that? Even if you have time, who wants to do it? Instead, Tinder allowed you to make the important dating decision based on looks and looks alone, if you’re that shallow. It does appear there is a short biography portion some might want to read, but only if the potential match fits your physical requirements per their photo.

“Swipe right” and “swipe left” became a part of our nomenclature, often used outside of dating. I’ve heard comics and late show hosts use the terminology. There is no doubt in my mind, those using the terminology associate it with Tinder. Alas, Bumble decided to use the feature as well. Probably because users liked picking their mates via the swipe method.

There are some further accusations as set forth in this article by Recode, “[Tinder] also claims that early Bumble executives Chris Gulczynski and Sarah Mick, who both previously worked at Tinder, stole ‘confidential information related to proposed Tinder features,’ including the idea for a feature that lets users go back if they accidentally skip someone, according to the suit.” This is important, because when you’re swiping for volume (because it’s a numbers game) and get into a zone you might accidentally eliminate someone you find attractive. You need to undo that ASAP.

Finally, there is the issue of Match/Tinder trying to purchase Bumble last year. They offered $450 million, which was turned down, due to the acrimonious relationship between the two companies. Is Tinder using this case to apply some pressure on Bumble, thereby encouraging a sale? Quite possible.

If the case actually moves ahead and a sale is not negotiated, we can expect to see some expert witness participation. What kind of experts? I wish I could encourage you to swipe right to view them. However, you just have to keep reading!

Intellectual Property / Patent Infringement:

Intellectual property is sort of wide ranging term for expert witnesses. A broad range of expertise fits into the category intellectual property, such as patents, patent infringement, trademarks, trade dress, copyrights, licensing, trade secrets, and more.

In the Tinder v. Bumble issue, it appears they are only suing over a couple of patents and The Verge told us what those patents are. Both patents appear to be connected with the user interface, so I anticipate we will see intellectual property experts with software, programming,  and design engineering backgrounds. There is potential need for electronic engineering expert witnesses, but I think that will be less likely as it doesn’t appear hardware is at issue in this case.

Trademarks:

The lawsuit also claims that Bumble’s use of the word “swiping” infringes on Tinder’s registered trademarks. This legal dictionary from Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute describes a trademark as follows, “A trademark is any word, name, symbol, or design, or any combination thereof, used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from those of another and to indicate the source of the goods.”

The Legal Information Institute also tells us that “Two basic requirements must be met for a mark to be eligible for trademark protection: it must be in use in commerce and it must be distinctive.”

As I mentioned above, I knew that “swiping” was something associated with Tinder and I know that Tinder is a subscription based dating service. So, according to this layperson, the mark is being used in commerce and I recognize it as distinctive to Tinder. Now that I’ve made this information public, I cannot imagine Bumble wanting me on the jury. Luckily, the case has been filed in the US District Court in Waco, Texas.

Furthermore, a trademark expert witness retained by Bumble, may be able to provide information about “swiping” that indicates it is not distinctive. In fact, the terminology may be quite prevalent in software uses.

A Similar Matter?

The software matter I equate to this lawsuit would be the “Stories” issue between Snapchat and Instagram. Snapchat was the first social media platform to use the Stories feature, allowing users to post a continuing series of video clips or photos in order to create an ongoing story. Instagram copied it, nearly outright, and even admitted that they took the idea from Snapchat. To my knowledge, this has not resulted in litigation. However, the use of software-based features seem nearly identical and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a patent infringement and trademark dispute between Facebook (Instagram’s parent company) and Snapchat.

Requests:

As I am not practicing in this field, I think it would be great to get some feedback from a some lawyers who regularly deal with patents and trademarks.

I have asked Karima Gulick of Gulick Law and Joey Vitale of Indie Law to provide some real insight, rather than lay punditry, in the matter of Tinder v. Bumble.

UPDATE:

Intellectual property and patent attorney, Karima Gulick, has provided her insight about this case on her blog. Here is her blog post: Tinder v. Bumble: Patent dispute in app dating paradise.

Copyright and trademark attorney, Joey Vitale, has provided his insight about this case on his blog. Here is his blog post: Be careful if you “swipe”: trademark battles in Tinder v. Bumble.

 

 

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?