Expert Witness | IP Counsel | Economic Analyst | AI, Big Data, Risk & Decision Modeler

Case Descriptions

For a plaintiff—assessed damages in a government contracting case, and explained why the government’s theory of damages was completely misplaced. Tribunal rejected government’s theory of damages in an interim ruling that motivated settlement on terms favorable to client.

For a respondent—explained why the ITC should exempt client from enforcement of a 337 action, even if other respondents were found to be in violation. ITC ruled that enforcement against client was inappropriate and unwarranted.

For a plaintiff—explained the policy driving laws against cybersquatting, the damage that cybersquatting can impose upon trademark owners, and the technology and economics underlying defendant’s business. Client won favorable summary judgment rulings on several key issues.

For a defendant—conducted detailed lost-profits and Georgia Pacific analyses in a patent infringement suit. Demonstrated fundamental inconsistencies in defendant’s lost profits claim, and significant errors in defendant’s Georgia Pacific analysis.

For a plaintiff—devised damage theory and assessed damages in a malpractice suit against client's former patent counsel. Was instrumental in showing that significant damages falling within the defendant's insurance coverage were at stake. Secured participation of insurance carrier in settlement discussions that resulted in a payment that client considered favorable.

For a defendant—conducted a detailed Georgia Pacific analysis circumscribing the reasonable royalties at stake in a patent infringement suit. Established significant limitations on the maximum amount that plaintiff could recover.

For a plaintiff—testified as an expert witness about the custom and practice of indemnification clauses in software licenses. Client was a large bank accused of patent infringement. Defendant was a major multinational software vendor. Suit settled on terms that the client considered favorable.

For a defendant—testified as an expert witness about the implication of dual- and multi-core processor technology to pre-existing software contracts. Client was a major global insurance company. Plaintiff was a large software vendor. Suit settled on terms that the client considered favorable.

For a plaintiff—testified as an expert witness about the damages incurred through government action diverting a trust fund from private hands. Client was a multinational corporation. Defendant was the U.S. Government. Work included a full day on the stand testifying at trial.

For a defendant—testified as an expert witness about damages methodology in the calculation of royalties under a software contract. Client was a major software company. Plaintiff was a technology company. Trial ended with client paying minimal damages.

For a plaintiff—testified as an expert witness about damages attributable to negligence in the strategic exploitation of a patent. Plaintiff was a patentee. Defendant was former patent litigation counsel. Suit settled on terms that the client considered favorable.

For a defendant—testified as an expert witness about the custom and practice of software licensing. Client was a major multinational serving as prime contractor on a foreign government contract. Plaintiff was a subcontractor seeking nine figure damages on an infringement claim. Suit settled on terms that the client considered favorable.

For a plaintiff—calculated damages due from a government agency under quasi-contract and takings theories. Client was a major supplier with an ongoing, mission-critical relationship with the agency. Suit settled in the mid-six figures to the satisfaction of the client, and in a manner that preserved the working relationship.

For a defendant—coordinated the economic damage analyses on behalf of an unindicted co-conspirator in a civil antitrust case. Indictments had already led to criminal fines and convictions of other co-conspirators. Jury in civil case found client liable but assessed zero damages.

For a plaintiff—provided antitrust guidance to plaintiffs’ attorneys seeking to develop a major price-fixing case from secret documentary evidence. Later developments eventually established both civil and criminal liability for defendants.

For a defendant—served as key economic advisor to lead litigation counsel in a complex antitrust matter involving client’s entire franchise model. Client was rapidly losing market share to larger competitors who were vertically integrating into client’s market niche. Client was simultaneously engaged in a struggle to restructure its business model, business tort and antitrust litigation with one competitor, and merger negotiations with another competitor. Assistance eventually preserved the franchise model and helped client realign its business for the future.

For a plaintiff—coordinated data intensive analyses relating alcohol consumption and taxation. Client was a distributor challenging state monopoly licenses on the sale of alcohol. Weighed the federal interest in unencumbered markets against a State’s rights and interests in the regulation of alcohol on behalf of a client seeking to change state liquor laws. Courts ruled in favor of client, and found the relevant legislation unconstitutional.

For a defendant—testified about the implication of Bayesian analysis and value of information calculations to consumer purchase decisions in advertising. Client was accused of making insufficiently substantiated claims in its advertising. Investigating agency dropped the matter after little further inquiry.

For a petitioner—integrated software engineering principles and data intensive economic analyses into antitrust arguments forwarded to the European Commission to aid its investigation of anticompetitive behavior in the software industry. Inquiry eventually led to significant penalty assessment based, in part, on the submitted evidence and analysis.