Scientific Evidence and Expert Testimony:  Patent Litigation

Fall 2010 Prof. Morris

- Last modified 9-10-10 at 2:00 p.m.

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

A. No. Most meetings will last between 2 and 2 1/2 hours.
We may meet for 3 hours or even longer 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 Francisco or 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 or
three sessions for the 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 their help in 2006 in creating
and developing the course, and, ever since, in making it happen.
Litigators Norm Beamer, Emily Evans, Ron Shulman, Bob Morgan,
and 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 students at Michigan and Stanford, for
stimulating discussions, insights, and challenges, and, after their
graduation, for continued correspondence to keep me at the cutting
My mentors and colleagues, Allen Krass, John Posa, Eric Woglom
and Dan Gantt, for communicating their joy in patent law, both
prosecution (AK and JP) and litigation (EW and DG), and for knowing
the answer to every question, or at least being willing to debate it
with me.
The members of the Women Meeting on Patent Law bi-monthly lunch
group, Heather Mueller, Megan Sugiyama, Emily Evans, Peggy Powers,
Vicki Veenker, 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 ("witnesses whose memories ..."), Lyon v. Boh ("antlike
persistency") and Tilghman v. Proctor (accidental anticipation)
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 marathon sessions.