Intellectual Property Case Experience (Patents)

IPriori serves as a consulting or testifying expert in technical litigation in Federal District Courts, Patentability Reviews, ITC Section 337 and Arbitration proceedings. In large, complex situations we can use our project management expertise to coordinate the activities of multiple technical experts.

Knowledgable of patent litigation frameworks for reviewing computer source code in the context of infringement; prior art in the context of invalidity and materiality; terminology for Markman claim construction, and support our opinions in claim charts in expert reports.


  • For the defendant/plaintiff in reciprocal cases — developed invalidity and infringement proofs on Internet shopping catalogs and search engines

  • For the defendant in an Internet postage case — proved and testified regarding patent invalidity

Internet Infrastructure and Advertising

  • In a mediation — analyzed operation of browsers, meta-tags, caching and deep linking to bypass advertisements

  • For the plaintiff — reported on use of trademarked terms as keywords in search engines linked to banner ads

  • For the plaintiff — determined infringement in DVB satellite delivery of Internet packets

  • For the plaintiff — reviewed source code and testified regarding semantic linking of documents to the Web

  • For the defendant — reviewed source code for selection, composition and serving Internet ads

Internet Media and Digital Rights Management

  • For the defendant — proof of invalidity of asserted patent covering uniquely keyed disks, with expert report

  • For the defendant — analyzed undisclosed prior art and testified about invalidity of patented music recognition techniques 

Casino Gaming

  • For a plaintiff in multiple cases — analyzed mechanical and software control, including randomization of multiple accused products


  • For the plaintiff — multiple cases on automatic SQL generation and visual query techniques

  • For the defendant — developed arguments that the deployment of servers did not violate the contract due to use of multiple servers in hot-standby high-availability system

  • For the defendant — analyzed source code for infringement allegations, and validity of patent covering multi-dimensional, sparse array databases

  • For the plaintiff — analyzed source code, prior art and claims interpretation for distributed contact manager synchronization products


  • For the plaintiff in multiple matters — analyzed infringement of real time process control in semiconductor manufacturing equipment

  • For the defendant — developed arguments and testified on alleged software copyright issues


  • For the defendant — opined on invalidity of keyboard data entry techniques and non-infringement

  • For a cell phone manufacturer — repeated engagements to review validity issues

  • For the plaintiff — developed source code infringement proof in prepaid wireless

Class Actions

  • For the defendant — demonstrated that the transfer of a purchaser from one site to an affiliate was not without user's affirmative consent

  • For the defendant — analyzed and provided an expert report addressing the difficulties in defining a class of smart phone customers using a variety of location services applications

Intellectual Property Strategy and Licensing

  • For a major overseas consultancy — prepared a report on U.S. patent litigation strategies and efficacy of software patents

  • Outside member of the patent review committee for an office products manufacturer

  • Developer of an early comprehensive intellectual property litigation database as a due-diligence tool

  • Invited speaker on intellectual property issues in Cleantech

  • Advised a WiMax chip maker, a Cleantech bicycle inventor and a video casino gaming inventor on licensing opportunities

  • For a private equity fund, pre-decision technical due-diligence reviews of multiple potential mezzanine investments