In a trial in which harm to the environment is at issue, the major challenge for any litigator is to present complex scientific information in a way that is easy for an average person to understand. For our litigation graphics consultants, this is true whether we are helping to represent an alleged polluter against a landowner or other person who alleges environmental damage, or whether it’s an insurance coverage case in which our client is asking an insurer to cover a claim under a business insurance policy. In many cases, the task is further complicated by the fact that environmental harm occurs over a period of years or even decades. In such situations, it is crucial to show not only how the damage occurred initially but how it became more serious, or less serious, over a period of time.
The passage of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act in 1984 and its subsequent amendments (collectively the Hatch-Waxman Act) gave rise to more competition in the pharmaceutical industry and a new era of litigation. The act itself provides a mechanism for generic drug companies to quickly gain approval to sell a generic version of an existing brand name drug. The application that begins the FDA approval process for the generic firm is called an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA). Brand name drug manufacturers have an understandable incentive to delay approval of the ANDA. Simply, if the ANDA approval is delayed, the brand name firm continues to enjoy the lawful ability to sell their brand name drug without a lower priced generic equivalent in the market. One lawful mechanism brand name manufacturers use that may have the effect of delaying the approval of an ANDA is the filing of a Citizen Petition with the FDA. The Citizen Petition filed by a brand name firm would typically allege that the proposed generic drug is not equivalent and thus should not be approved for sale. Should the Citizen Petition be deemed only a mechanism for delaying approval of the ANDA/generic drug rather than one filed with the public's health interest at heart, the brand name firm would be liable for antitrust violations. Such was the question our firm faced when working on behalf of a brand name pharmaceutical firm recently. A Citizen Petition had been filed and a jury was going to be asked whether it had been lawfully filed. Were the jury to find that the Citizen Petition had been unlawfully filed with the intent to simply delay approval of the generic drug, they could possibly award hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. One quirk in this case that proved advantageous was the fact that it was not the generic drug firm suing the brand name firm, but instead it was the middleman or drug wholesaler who was alleging antitrust violations. Our challenge in creating an effective trial presentation was to create trial exhibits that both taught the jury and persuaded the jury simultaneously. The trial exhibits shown below were part of an opening PowerPoint presentation that explained who was involved in the case (i.e. the typical parties/players trial exhibit) and who was not involved. We sought to emphasize that the brand name firm was being sued not by the generic drug manufacturer but instead the wholesaler who we painted as the delivery guys in these opening trial exhibits. The story told is this: Brand name firms seek approval for a new drug from the FDA; Brand name firms distribute their product through wholesalers who then sell them to pharmacies; Generic firms receive approval to sell through an ANDA; The brand name firm here is BrandName Pharma, generics will be mentioned and then there are the wholesalers. In this case HatchWax Wholesale Drug; One would think the generics are involved, but they are not. Only the wholesalers or the delivery guys are suing. What business do they have suing? Who is HatchWax Wholesale Drug? They are professional antitrust plaintiffs.
Still think PowerPoint is a trial presentation tool primarily for bullet points and text? Allow me to show you otherwise! Like a good salad, PowerPoint is all about the ingredients you put into it. Bad ingredients (e.g. text only, bullet points, clip art, poor color choice, etc.) equal bad PowerPoint trial graphics. Good ingredients (e.g. technical illustration, well-designed backgrounds, quality transitions between slides, animation, etc.) equal winning trial graphics. Since the introduction of the 2003 version, PowerPoint has been a go-to tool for patent litigators in claim construction hearings, tutorials, at the ITC and in patent infringement trials. Out of the box, PowerPoint is simply a blank canvas that allows text, clip art and basic shapes to be combined on a slide. However, in the hands of an information designer at a trial consulting firm, it is a powerful tool indeed. Like a master painter with high quality paints, skill and experience, the blank canvas of PowerPoint can be filled with true works of information art in the hands of a skilled information designer. The movie below contains four examples of patent infringement trial graphics created by Animators at Law. Three of the four examples were created for jury trials or Markman hearings. One example was built for a §337 ITC hearing. All examples combine technical illustration and PowerPoint animation in a clever way. The examples are:
The world is watching in shock as a nuclear drama unfolds in northeastern Japan. In only a few days, most of us have somehow come to accept that there are degrees of a nuclear meltdown and that explosions at a nuclear power plant may not always point to a cataclysmic outcome. A week ago, those beliefs would have been unthinkable. Then, nuclear power was a binary condition: it was either safe, clean and efficient, or it was Chernobyl, with no in between. Even in the safest of times, generating power through nuclear energy presents major challenges. One of the key challenges is handling the inevitable nuclear waste, primarily spent nuclear fuel. After conducting extensive studies in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. Government thought it had found an answer. In 1983, the U.S. Government contracted with operators of nuclear power plants to begin picking up nuclear waste starting in 1998 and storing it in a central facility. The U.S. Government had then agreed to become the primary shipping and storage mechanism for the nuclear power industry. The plan was to store nuclear waste at the now defunct Yucca Mountain storage facility located about 100 miles from Las Vegas. Ultimately, fears of geologic instability at the site combined with election-year politics doomed the project. So, instead of one underground facility located on the site where 904 atomic bomb tests have already been conducted, America is left with more than 100 storage sites around the country where nuclear waste is stored in pools or barrels. When the U.S. Government breached their agreement to pick up the nuclear waste, operators of nuclear power plants sued. In this line of cases, the question is not whether a breach has occurred, but rather how much it will cost the facility to store the waste if that is even possible. Animators at Law has been involved in quite a number of these spent fuel cases typically heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Below are some litigation graphics from these cases. The animation below shows the removal of a reactor pressure vessel. When a plant must be closed due to age or due to an inability to store more waste, the reactor pressure vessel may be removed. The boiling water reactors at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant use a similar reactor pressure vessel. Originally created in PowerPoint using dozens of technical illustrations played in succession, this litigation animation shows two methods of removing the reactor pressure vessel that contains the plant's nuclear core.
At Animators at Law, roughly 60% of our work involves patent litigation graphics. These patent cases run the gambit from light bulbs to software to semiconductors to drug eluting stents. Since a jury is often called upon to decide the key issues in the litigation they must understand the underlying technology. There is no substitute for well-crafted graphics in a patent jury trial involving technology. Our firm has been creating litigation graphics in intellectual property litigation since 1995 often utilizing our former patent litigators has graphics consultants. While our delivery medium is often PowerPoint, the underlying graphics or animation are usually created in a more sophisticated illustration software tool. We routinely use visual analogies as a teaching and persuasion technique. Specifically, we use analogies that relate complex subject matter to something familiar or easily grasped by the fact-finder. We have used stadiums to relate scale in a bench trial where the federal judge was a season ticket holder, the Statue of Liberty to convey the severity of the turbulence and an out of business service station to explain expenses involving the storage of nuclear waste. In the patent litigation graphic below, our challenge was to explain a protection MOSFET or metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor. In non-technical jargon, a MOSFET is a switch used to control the flow of electronic signals. We ultimately needed the jury to achieve a much deeper understanding than this definition, however, and this meant starting with a basic understanding of how a MOSFET works. In the movie, you can see that we have used PowerPoint animation and a plumbing analogy to lay the foundation for an understanding of a MOSFET, transistors and semiconductors. After all, like a valve attached to your sink, a MOSFET is simply used to control flow.
After the introduction of PowerPoint 2003, PowerPoint became the dominant trial presentation tool used by litigators. It has largely replaced printed large format trial exhibit boards in most high stakes cases. However, PowerPoint also introduced a problem that deserves our attention. Instead of graphic designers creating well-designed printed trial boards, litigators and their support staff could now create exhibits on their own. Some did create great presentations, however the vast majority of trial and corporate presentations came to be dominated by the dreaded bullet point and text-heavy slides. Comedian Don McMillan covers this and other PowerPoint-related topic best: What is problematic about the bullet point and text-heavy slides in PowerPoint trial presentations is not what you might first think. Yes, bullet points almost surely lead to boredom. Sure, they are not a particularly effective technique for emphasizing key messages. Worse, as Don McMillan notes, it can be excruciating when someone reads their bullet points and text. However, worst of all is something called the redundancy effect. This scientifically validated concept is the true enemy of the effective litigator deploying legal graphics.
Share: