Podcast - The Basic Rules for Closing Argument
More on Cross-Examination: Building a Case Brick by Brick
Podcast - Cross-Examination: Don't Ask One Question Too Many
Podcast - The Ten Commandments of Cross-Examination
Podcast - Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses
Cross-Examination: The Three C’s of Impeachment
Cross-Examination: How to Effectively Impeach with a Prior Inconsistent Statement
Cross-Examination: Finding Control
Podcast - Cross-Examination: Don't Argue - Elicit Facts
Cross-Examination: Asking the Right Leading Questions
Podcast - Cross-Examination: The Importance of Organization
Understanding When to Cross-Examine
AGG Talks: Antitrust and White-Collar Crime Roundup Podcast - Episode 9: Exploring the DA’s Proof, Michael Cohen’s Cross-Examination, and Jury Scenarios in Trump’s Election Interference Trial
Podcast - Cross-Examination: Basic Approaches
The "Why" of Cross-Examination
Basic Points to Consider in Redirect Examination
Podcast - The Basic Elements of Direct Examination
Episode 28: Opening Statements: Some Common Challenges
Podcast - The Unwritten Rules of Trial Practice
Witness Testimony Themes, Cross Examination, & Preparation Consultants – IMS Insights Podcast Episode 55
In two related inter partes review proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted a petitioner’s motion to exclude the declaration of an inventor because the patent owner failed to make him available for...more
In a series of related inter partes review proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently granted a petitioner’s motion to strike the sworn affidavit of a witness who was unwilling to submit to cross-examination. In...more
The regulations governing discovery in an inter partes review ("IPR") proceeding do not provide for the same methods of discovery available in a patent infringement lawsuit. As such, when opportunities for discovery...more
As discussed in our previous post, one of the most critical tasks for Patent Owners during the Inter Partes Reviews (“IPR”) discovery period is deposing the Petitioner’s expert. Since IPR depositions are treated differently...more
As a Patent Owner in an instituted Inter Partes Reviews (“IPR”), one of the first and most critical tasks before you is deposing the Petitioner’s witnesses, including its experts. But approaching an IPR deposition like a...more
All eyes are on Arthrex this week, right? So of course we decided to take a look at a Board decision, and one that—so says the dissent—creates a circuit split. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently issued an Order that illustrates the circumstances in which a party may obtain additional discovery in an inter partes review (IPR). In Apple Inc. v. Singapore Asahi Chemical...more
Addressing the scope of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) guidelines that prohibit lawyers from conferring with their witness during cross-examination, the PTAB designated as precedential a 2014 decision permitting lawyers...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
On July 15, 2019, the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) published a second update to the AIA Trial Practice Guide (TPG) (“2nd Update”), providing additional guidance for trial practice before the Board. The...more
The PTAB panel in Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc., Case IPR2014-00116 (PTAB July 21, 2014) (Paper 19), provided certain clarifications with regard to the ability to confer with witnesses during examination. This...more
On July 10, 2019, the PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel designated Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. Senorx, Inc., IPR2014-00116, Paper 19 (PTAB July 21, 2014), as precedential. By way of background, during PTAB proceedings, direct...more
Last week the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated as precedential a decision from 2014, which found that counsel can confer with a deponent at the conclusion of cross examination and prior to redirect. Through...more
On March 7, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated the decision in Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom as precedential. The order provides guidance and information on practice surrounding a patent owner’s motion...more
In an ongoing inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) denied Petitioner Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition, Inc.’s request to cross examine two expert witnesses after Patent Owner...more
On January 30, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or “the Board”) granted in part the petitioner’s motion to strike various declarations of a named inventor because the patent owner failed to make him available for...more
Citing both substantive and procedural reasons, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) ruled that a party was not entitled to present observations concerning the cross-examination...more
In litigation, it is not uncommon for depositions to be taken outside the United States, particularly when a given witness resides outside the United States and cannot or does not wish to travel to the United States. In IPR...more
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc. - The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) dismissed a patent owner’s improper motions for observation, agreeing with the petitioner that the...more
A.C. Dispensing Equipment Inc. v. Prince Castle LLC - Addressing the appropriate timing of cross-examination of expert witnesses in an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and...more
Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm and Haas Co. - In an order regarding allowable communications between counsel and witness, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held that counsel may confer with a witness between the end...more