Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:19:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Roberta J Morris 
Reply-To: rjmorris@alumni.brown.edu
To: Ada Wong , Alice C Garber , 
    "Allison, Craig" , 
    "Beamer, Norman H." , 
    Chrissy Brown , 
    "Higgins, Gabrielle E." , 
    Irvin Tyan , Kenneth Bridges , 
    Lisa Nicole Silverman , 
    Mark Lemley , 
    Megan Sugiyama , 
    "Morgan, Robert C." , 
    Patsie Gray , "Sano, Jeannine" , 
    Saxon Noh , 
    "Selwyn, Mark" , 
    Tim Holbrook 
cc: scievseminar07@lists.stanford.edu, Judy Dearing 
Subject: Judging the Expert Witness Simulations

Dear Judges:
	Thank you again for volunteering to judge the expert
witness simulations in my seminar.
	The simulations will all be in the Moot Court Room, which
is Room 80 in the lower level of the classroom building.

	Parking:  The Tresidder visitor parking lot, as well as
almost all posted spaces, are free to everyone from 4 pm on.  I
recommend parking at or near the Tresidder lot because there is a
great deal of construction next to the law school.  By November
26, I'll post a map and link it on the TEAMS webpage
	http://www.stanford.edu/~rjmorris/sciev.07/TEAMS.HTM
  Meanwhile if anyone needs directions or other information about
campus, please email me.

	Stipulations:  The students will provide me with their
final stipulations by the morning before the day of their
performances, which I will then forward to you.  This will
include the claim number, phrase in dispute, issue to which that
phrase pertains, and relevant feature of the accused device or
prior art, if any.

	*******************************************************
	If you have not heard from me by 6 pm the night before
	you are scheduled to judge, please let me know.  If you
	will be away from email preceding your judging, please
	give me your telephone and fax numbers just in case.
	*******************************************************

	The ground rules for all the simulations are as follows:

	a. Time Constraints:  Each expert has 30 minutes to
testify, with the attorneys deciding how to divide that time
between direct, cross and re-direct examination.

	b.  Technological Background Information:  Except for the
students acting as experts, nobody is expected to have particular
expertise in the areas of the patents in suit.  Experts for at
least the patent owners will begin their testimony with
information about the technology and the patented invention.  If
the students have invented a design-around, that will be
explained in the expert testimony as well.

	c. Jury Trial Has Been Waived: Some of the teams have
chosen substantive issues, not simply claim construction, for
their projects. While that means that the testimony is NOT
necessarily for a Markman hearing, we have assumed that it is for
a BENCH trial, not a jury trial, before a judge who is very
intelligent, and probably a technophile.

	d. Rules of Evidence:  Because this is NOT a trial
practice course, the rules of evidence will be interpreted
liberally.  The law student-attorneys are not permitted to
object.  Leading questions are permitted at all times.  Any
judge, however, who finds a question to be too outrageous may
announce "Objection sustained."  The attorney will then have to
rephrase the question.
	Similarly, neither attorneys nor witnesses need seek
permission from the judges to approach the witness or to leave
the witness chair to write on the easel, respectively.
Permission is hereby granted in advance.

	e.  Exhibits:  All demonstratives are approved by all
parties; every possible document to which any expert or attorney
might want to refer has been admitted into evidence; exhibit
numbers will not be used; and any other simplifing rule about
exhibits that may be needed is hereby in effect.

	f.  Qualification of Experts:  All experts are accepted
as qualified.  No time will be wasted going over fictitious
resumes, no matter how much fun that might be.  Experts may be
referred to as Doctor or Professor, at their option, and their
substantial years of experience, honors and awards, and
telephone-book-length publication list can be imagined as needed.

	g.  Every team's first slide will be the claim at issue,
reformatted to enhance readability, with the disputed language
highlighted in some way.  (Students: OR ELSE!)  If the claim is
_not_ claim 1, that fact will be mentioned in the day-before
stipulation list, as will the phrase in dispute and the issue on
which expert testimony will be taken.

	h.  Supplies:  A copy of the patent in suit, a pad, a
pen, and a bottle of water, will be provided to each judge.

	These rules, possibly as later amended, will also be
linked on the TEAMS.HTM page.

	If you have any questions, comments or problems, please
do not hesitate to let me know.

	Thank you again!
	Best regards,
	Roberta
--------------------------------------------------------
         Roberta J. Morris
         Lecturer, Stanford Law School
         Room 208
         650-723-9505
                 AB Brown University 1971 summa cum laude
                 JD Harvard Law School 1975
                 Ph.D. Columbia University 1986 (Physics)
           Member of the Patent Bar and of the Bars of
           New York and Michigan
         Adjunct, Patent Law and related subjects
           University of Michigan Law School, 1991-2005
           Stanford University Law School, 2006-present
--------------------------------------------------------