casemark/deposition-ip-supplement

IP Litigation Deposition Supplement

IP-specific examination strategies for patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret depositions. Supplements @deposition-preparation as the primary framework.

Quick Start

1. Activate @deposition-preparation as primary framework
2. Gather: IP registrations, prosecution history, claim construction order, licensing history, expert reports
3. Identify case type below and select relevant witness frameworks
4. For expert depositions, also apply @deposition-expert-witness

Case Types

| Type | Key Issues | Key Witnesses | |------|-----------|---------------| | Patent | Claim construction, infringement (literal/DOE), validity, willfulness, damages | Inventors, R&D/engineering, licensing, technical/damages experts | | Trademark | Distinctiveness, priority, likelihood of confusion, willfulness, damages | Mark owner, marketing, survey experts, damages expert | | Copyright | Ownership, originality, access, substantial similarity, fair use, damages | Authors, access witnesses, similarity/damages experts | | Trade Secret | Existence, reasonable secrecy measures, misappropriation, damages | Secret owners, accused misappropriators, security, damages expert |

Examination Frameworks

Patent — Inventor

| Topic | Key Questions | |-------|--------------| | Conception | First conception date; problem solved; contemporaneous records; who was told | | Reduction to practice | Date; testing/prototyping; corroborating documentation | | Prior art knowledge | Known prior art; searches conducted; how invention differs from [specific ref] | | Claims | Understanding of claim scope; meaning of [disputed term]; relationship to accused product | | Prosecution | Involvement; review of office actions; reasons for amendments |

Patent — Accused Infringer Technical Witness

| Topic | Key Questions | |-------|--------------| | Product/process | How [accused product] works; key components; development timeline | | Design process | Alternatives considered; why this approach; patent awareness; design-around efforts | | Claim mapping | Presence of [claim element]; how product performs [claim function] | | Non-infringement | Which limitation not met; how product differs from claims | | Prior art | Prior products/publications before patent priority date |

Patent — Licensing/Damages Witness

| Topic | Key Questions | |-------|--------------| | Licensing history | Existing licenses; royalty rates; negotiation process; comparables | | Commercial success | Sales figures; success attributable to patented feature | | Market | Competitors; non-infringing alternatives; market share impact | | Hypothetical negotiation | Pre-infringement terms; Georgia-Pacific factors; royalty rate and base |

Patent — Technical Expert

Apply @deposition-expert-witness plus:

• Claim construction: Basis for construing [disputed term]; prosecution history; specification support
• Infringement: Element-by-element walkthrough; physical exam of accused product; source code review (software)
• Validity: Prior art considered; whether [reference] discloses [element]; PHOSITA motivation to combine

Patent — Damages Expert

| Topic | Key Questions | |-------|--------------| | Reasonable royalty | Methodology; Georgia-Pacific factors applied; comparable licenses; royalty base | | Lost profits | "But for" world; manufacturing capacity; non-infringing alternatives; market share methodology | | Apportionment | Method for isolating patented feature value; consumer demand driver analysis |

Trademark — Mark Owner

| Topic | Key Questions | |-------|--------------| | Creation/adoption | When/who created; why chosen; first use in commerce | | Distinctiveness | Inherent or acquired secondary meaning; consumer recognition; advertising investment | | Confusion | Awareness of defendant's mark; actual confusion incidents; similarity; relatedness of goods | | Damages | Lost sales; goodwill damage; costs addressing confusion |

Trademark — Accused Infringer

| Topic | Key Questions | |-------|--------------| | Adoption | When/who decided to use mark; prior search; awareness of plaintiff's mark | | Intent | Intent to trade on goodwill; legal advice; good/bad faith indicators | | Confusion | Known confusion incidents; misdirected customers/orders | | Market | How customers find and distinguish products |

Trade Secret — Owner

| Topic | Key Questions | |-------|--------------| | Identification | Specific description; what makes it secret; development date and team | | Secrecy measures | Physical/electronic security; NDAs; need-to-know restrictions; training | | Value | Development investment; competitive advantage; cost of independent development | | Misappropriation | How defendant acquired secret; evidence; timing |

Trade Secret — Accused Misappropriator

| Topic | Key Questions | |-------|--------------| | Relationship | Nature of relationship; access; agreements signed; understood obligations | | Accused information | Awareness of trade secret; how obtained; independent development evidence | | Use/disclosure | Use of information; third-party disclosure; relation to accused product | | Notice | Knowledge of confidentiality; steps taken regarding obligations |

Document Focus Areas

| Document | Topics | |----------|--------| | Prosecution file | Amendments, arguments, prior art, rejections | | Invention records | Lab notebooks, conception/RTP dates, corroboration | | Licensing agreements | Terms, comparability, negotiation history | | Design/technical docs | Development process, alternatives, product operation | | Marketing materials | Features emphasized, performance claims | | Confidentiality agreements | Scope, obligations, signatories | | Source code | Software patents, trade secret cases | | Financial records | Damages calculation support |

Preparation Checklist

• [ ] Review patents/registrations/trade secret identification
• [ ] Review prosecution history and file wrapper (patent)
• [ ] Map disputed claim terms and proposed constructions (patent)
• [ ] Prepare claim element mapping chart (patent)
• [ ] Identify prior art references and gaps (patent/copyright)
• [ ] Understand accused product/process technical operation
• [ ] Review licensing agreements and comparables
• [ ] Prepare likelihood of confusion analysis (trademark — DuPont)
• [ ] Review confidentiality agreements and secrecy measures (trade secret)
• [ ] Understand damages theory and expert methodology
• [ ] Review expert reports — apply @deposition-expert-witness

Pitfalls

• Pin claim constructions before deposing technical witnesses — questions must track operative constructions
• Lock inventors to specific conception/RTP dates with corroborating documents
• Force precise trade secret identification before substantive questions — vague descriptions create indefiniteness defenses
• Prosecution history estoppel: lock infringers into positions foreclosing DOE arguments
• Cover all 15 Georgia-Pacific factors with damages witnesses; gaps invite Daubert challenge
• Willfulness (§ 284): pre-suit patent knowledge required — establish/negate knowledge timeline
• DTSA vs. state UTSA: confirm governing law; definitions and preemption scope vary
• Copyright fair use: explore each of four factors independently with relevant witnesses

References

• 35 U.S.C. §§ 101–287 (Patent Act)
• 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051–1141 (Lanham Act)
• 17 U.S.C. §§ 101–810 (Copyright Act)
• 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836–1839 (DTSA)
• Georgia-Pacific v. U.S. Plywood, 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)
• Markman v. Westview Instruments, 517 U.S. 370 (1996)
• Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics, 579 U.S. 93 (2016)