Expert Analysis

• Teaching Your Witness To Beat The Freeze/Appease Response

  

  In addition to fight-or-flight, witnesses may experience the freeze/appease response at trial or deposition — where they become a deer in headlights, agreeing with opposing counsel’s questions and damaging their credibility in the process — but certain strategies can help, says Bill Kanasky at Courtroom Sciences.

• Think Like A Lawyer: 1 Type Of Case Complexity Stands Out

  

  In contrast to some cases that appear complex due to voluminous evidence or esoteric subject matter, a different kind of complexity involves tangled legal and factual questions, each with a range of possible outcomes, which require a “sliding scale” approach instead of syllogistic reasoning, says Luke Andrews at Poole Huffman.

• Netflix Dispute May Alter 'Source' In TM Fair-Use Analysis

  

  ​The Ninth Circuit’s upcoming decision in Hara v. Netflix​, about what it means to be source-identifying​, could change how the Rogers defense protects expressive works that utilize trademarks in a creative fashion, says Sara Gold at Gold IP.

• Fed. Circ. Ruling Shows Importance Of Trial Expert Specificity

  

  The Federal Circuit’s recent ruling in NexStep v. Comcast highlights how even a persuasive expert’s failure to fully explain the basis of their opinion at trial can turn a winning patent infringement argument into a losing one, say attorneys at Barnes & Thornburg.

• Think Like A Lawyer: Note 3 Simple Types Of Legal Complexity

  

  Cases can appear complex for several reasons — due to the number of issues, the volume of factual and evidentiary sources, and the sophistication of those sources — but the same basic technique can help lawyers tame their arguments into a simple and persuasive message, says Luke Andrews at Poole Huffman.

• Corporate Liability Issues To Watch In High Court TM Case

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a trademark dispute between Dewberry Group and Dewberry Engineers next week, presenting an opportunity for the court to drastically alter the fundamental approach to piercing the corporate veil, or adopt a more limited approach and preserve existing norms, say attorneys at Bracewell.

• Trending At The PTAB: Collateral Estoppel Continues Evolving

  

  We are starting to see brighter lines on collateral estoppel involving Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings, illustrated by two recent cases that considered whether collateral estoppel should apply to factual findings on prior art from the PTAB in a later district court litigation, say attorneys at Finnegan.

• Series

  Gardening Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Beyond its practical and therapeutic benefits, gardening has bolstered important attributes that also apply to my litigation practice, including persistence, patience, grit and authenticity, says Christopher Viceconte at Gibbons.

• Litigation Inspiration: Reframing Document Review

  

  For attorneys — new ones especially — there is much fulfillment to find in document review by reflecting on how important, interesting and pleasant it can be, says Bennett Rawicki at Hilgers Graben.

• What Fed. Circ. Ruling Means For Patent Case Dismissals

  

  ​​​​​​​The Federal Circuit's recent decision in UTTO v. Metrotech is significant because it specifically authorizes district courts to dismiss patent infringement lawsuits without a separate Markman hearing, but only when the meaning of a claim term is clear and case-dispositive, says Peter Gergely at Merchant & Gould.

• The Fed. Circ. In October: Anti-Suit Injunctions And SEPs

  

  The Federal Circuit's holding in Ericsson v. Lenovo, a complex global case involving standard-essential patents, will likely have broad consequences for practitioners, including by making it easier to obtain an anti-suit injunction, say attorneys at Knobbe Martens.

• Declaring Unexpected Results: Pitfalls For Rule 132 At PTAB

  

  Rule 132 declarations are frequently used in life sciences patent prosecution for rebutting obviousness rejections by establishing that an applicant's invention produces unexpected results, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's Eidschun ruling highlights when this important tool may be ineffective, say attorneys at Morrison Foerster.

• IP Ruling Likely To Limit Arguments Against Qualified Experts

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Osseo v. Planmeca, clarifying when experts may offer testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan, provides helpful guidance on expert qualifications and could quash future timing arguments regarding declarants' expertise, says Whitney Jenkins at Marshall Gerstein.

• Dissecting The Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Debate

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Allergan v. MSN highlights the ongoing evolution of the obviousness-type double patenting doctrine, revealing increasing tension between expiration-based interpretations and procedural flexibility, says Jeremy Lowe at Leydig Voit.

• Series

  Flying Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Achieving my childhood dream of flying airplanes made me a better lawyer — and a better person — because it taught me I can conquer difficult goals when I leave my comfort zone, focus on the demands of the moment and commit to honing my skills, says Ivy Cadle at Baker Donelson.