Scientific Evidence and Expert Testimony:  Patent Litigation

Fall 2009 Prof. Morris

- Last modified 9-16-09 at 5:00 p.m.

Q. Class is listed as 4:15 to 7:15 pm Wednesdays. Will we really meet
every week for 3 hours on Monday nights?

A. No. Most meetings will last about 2 1/2 hours.
We may meet for 3 hours or more for the simulations performances,
which will be scheduled during the last week of the quarter.
There will also be a few weeks with an extra meeting at a mutually
convenient time, or without a Monday night meeting, so that you (and I)
1) attend a patent trial in San Jose where a live expert is
testifying. (Students with conflicts due to other courses or work will
be exempt, but I hope as many of you as possible will be able to attend);
2) meet by teams or one-on-one to discuss your patent, its file
history, the most plausible design around, and the issues that are
presented most clearly by all of that. These conferences will last as
long as they need to. They will be scheduled at a mutually convenient
time; and
3) perform (or observe, as the case may be) all your simulations.
Depending to the number of students in class, we may prefer to hold two
sessions for simulations rather than one.

Q. Will the class meet straight through?
A. No. We will have a short break at around 5:30. Snacks (healthy
or otherwise as democracy dictates) will be provided.

Q. Whom would Prof. Morris like to thank?

A. Prof. Morris would like to thank:
Deans Kramer and Kelman, for help conceiving of the course,
bouncing ideas around, and, last but not least, making it happen.
Litigators Norm Beamer, Emily Evans, Ron Shulman, Bob Morgan,
Rob Isackson (all of whom I first met in my days at Fish & Neave)
for transcripts and exhibits for possible use in the seminar.
Bob Morrill of Sidley Austin and William Lee and Nathan Walker
of Wilmer Hale for transcripts and exhibits from BSC v. Cordis, the
trial my students attended in 2007.
The various deans at the University of Michigan Law School,
and Prof. Rebecca Eisenberg, always a brilliant, wise and
gracious colleague, who gave me the chance to teach patent law
and various seminars at Michigan from 1991 to 2005.
My excellent patent students at Michigan, for stimulating
discussions, insights, and challenges, and, after their graduation, for
continued correspondence to keep me at the cutting edge.
My excellent seminar and IP survey students at Stanford, for their
hard work, enthusiasm, ideas, creativity and all-around smarts.
My mentors and colleagues, Allen Krass, John Posa and Dan Gantt,
for communicating their joy in patent law, both prosecution (AK and JP)
and litigation (DG), and for knowing the answer to every question, or
at least being willing to debate it with me.
My friends in the Women Meeting on Patent Law bi-monthly lunch
group, Heather Mueller, Megan Sugiyama, Emily Evans, Peggy Powers,
Vicki Veenker, Gabrielle Higgins and Julie Holloway, for insights,
information, and perpetual enthusiasm about patent law.
My mentors at Fish & Neave 1986-1990, including especially
Al Fey who told me about the old cases, such as Barbed
Wire, Lyon v. Boh ("antlike persistency") and Tilghman v.
and most importantly
Eric Woglom, who with Doug Gilbert's able assistance,
tried to teach me all of patent law in two afternoons in April 1986. I
still think in terms of my notes from those marathons.