One type of litigation consulting that is underused is the planning and conducting of a mock trial. A good litigation consultant can put together a mock trial that is every bit as real in appearance and challenges the litigation team as much as an actual trial.
U.S. district court judges often lack the scientific or engineering background to fully understand the issues in highly technical patent cases without outside assistance. And ever since the Supreme Court’s Markman ruling in 1996 finding that claim construction – the interpretation of the words of a patent claim – is a task given over to the judge, it has been more important than ever for judges to get a solid working knowledge of the subject matter of a case. Judges now routinely convene so-called Markman hearings, also known as claim construction hearings, before trial to help them in their task of claim construction, which is at the core of many patent disputes. Many patent lawyers say the Markman hearing has become second in importance only to the trial itself. In a Markman hearing, judges must resolve all the disputes about the interpretation of a patent and must construe the claims for trial. The Markman hearing is therefore a key opportunity for both parties to guide the judge through the thicket of the evidence and to help him or her understand the case.
by Ken Lopez As litigation consultants, jury consultants, trial technology consultants and litigation graphics consultants, we have the opportunity to share our decades of experience in over 10,000 cases, working with litigators from all major law firms, with our litigation clients every day. Clearly, this is a valuable service, and I believe great litigators become better litigators for having worked with our firm.
As the Washington Business Journal recently wrote, the International Trade Commission (ITC), once an obscure federal agency, has become the epicenter of high-end international patent law in recent years. Its docket is rapidly growing, and its cases can be worth sums in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.
Electronic briefs (e-Briefs) made their first appearance on the legal stage in the 1990s, but today’s e-briefs are far ahead of their predecessors in terms of technology and usability. E-briefs are electronic versions of ordinary paper-based court filings. But instead of providing lengthy, thick and repetitive appendices and materials at the end of the brief, a lawyer filing an e-brief simply inserts hyperlinks to attachments from the main document. This has many advantages, and surely at least one of these advantages changes everything you ever knew about ebriefs.
[See updated 2013 article by clicking here: 21 Ingenious Ways to Research Your Judge]
Part 2 of 2 ( go to part 1) I will begin by reiterating key elements of the first post in this this two part series. More than 20 years ago, the Justice Department began filing lawsuits against a large number of coal fired power plants based on a Clean Air Act provision called New Source Review (NSR). The NSR process calls on power plant operators to seek EPA review and approval before making modifications to their power plant that would significantly increase emissions. An exception exists routine maintenance. Since Congress neglected to define routine and significant, litigation has followed over these definitions. Animators at Law has worked on many of these cases and created trial graphics and legal animations. I want to share portions of a 13-minute animation used in the opening of an NSR bench trial in 2003. We worked on behalf of the power plant owner in this matter. We faced multiple challenges such as: conveying the scale of the plant; explaining the plant's operation; showing how the projects in question were not large; showing how these projects were in fact routine maintenance; showing how none of the projects increased emissions. After the Justice Department opened its case with an animation that compared the size of parts changed during routine maintenance to elephants, houses and semi-trucks, we had to make the point that while large parts were changed, they are relatively small in the context of such a large facility. With billions of dollars at stake, Animators at Law prepared a large number of trial boards and legal animations for the case. In part one of this post, I shared how Animators at Law compared the size of the facility to Busch Stadium using legal animations. Below is an example of how we combined technical illustration with a legal animation overlay to provide an overview of the plant, to explain how the plant worked and to again emphasize scale.
Share: