Closing Arguments: Focus and Organization
Closing Argument: Opportunity and Challenge
How to Make Clear, Quick and Effective Objections
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 - Refresh vs. Impeach: Know the Difference
Podcast - Impeaching with a Deposition
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
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 20: Tips for Court Cases with Judge Dennis and Judge Wilkins of Maynard Nexsen
Understanding When to Cross-Examine
Podcast - Cross-Examination: Basic Approaches
The "Why" of Cross-Examination
Basic Points to Consider in Redirect Examination
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - In Re MAXPOWER SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. [ORDER] (2021-146, 9/8/21) (O’Malley, Reyna, Chen) - Reyna, J. Denying mandamus petition and dismissing appeal. The Court declined to...more
Although first briefly mentioned as a possibility in the August 2018 Trial Practice Guide Update (page 10), outside of one instance (Bio-Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics, IPR2019-00567; -00568, August 8, 2019), PTAB discretionary...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) designated new Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) precedents protecting patent owners from multiple inter partes review (IPR) challenges. The Board decisions included...more
In the last two years, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has issued two precedential decisions (in NHK and Fintiv) that set forth the board’s test for determining whether to deny an inter partes review (IPR) petition based on...more
The rate at which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) institutes Petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) has been in steady decline since the introduction of the IPR procedure in 2013, and is expected to...more
The PTAB has been grappling with how to manage IPR petitions for patents that are also being challenged in federal district court, particularly when the district court is set to determine the patent validity prior to the...more
In its precedential decision in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR 2020-00019, paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020), the PTAB set forth a six factor “holistic” test for balancing considerations of system efficiency, fairness, and...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated an order, Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR 2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020), as precedential. The order outlines six non-dispositive factors the PTAB will...more
In August 2018, the Patent Office foreshadowed that the Board would be expanding the use of its discretion under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a)/324(a) and 325(d) to deny petitions. The Office explained that “[t]here may be other reasons...more
The PTAB recently designated two decisions as precedential and one decision as informative on discretion to institute review. Becton, Dickinson and Company v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017)...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as precedential four decisions addressing America Invents Act proceedings and issues of live testimony at oral argument and motions to amend under 35 USC § 316(d)....more
In a recent decision that the PTAB designated as precedential, the Board denied a patent owner’s request to provide live testimony from the inventor of the challenged patent at the oral hearing. In DePuy Synthes Products,...more
Generally, the PTAB does not allow live testimony at oral argument, but recently it designated one of its 2014 decisions as precedential to give guidance as to when the Board will allow live testimony at oral argument. K-40...more